Awesome experience. 2 weeks for 2 high quality ref reports. Editor then said with a quick/thorough response and no need to go back to refs. Good strong editors.

2012

04/18/13

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Accepted

5

3

2

Amazing experience. High quality, detailed referee reports, which substantially improved the paper. Editor provided detailed advice throughout the entire revision process. Average turnaround time was rather long for AEJ standards. Overall, I was very pleased with the process. Strong and professional editors!

2016

04/06/18

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Accepted

3

12

2

Good first round reports, took a while to respond to all the comments. Second round 4 months before acceptance. Good experience.

2016

04/22/18

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2012

01/02/13

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. Didn't make the paper better at all.

2015

07/01/16

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Helpful and fair referee reports. Both referees read the paper in detail, one report four pages and the other five pages. Would submit again.

2017

08/03/17

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

2012

12/21/12

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

It's quick, but the reports are really bad and unhelpful. Didn't make the paper better at all.

2015

07/01/16

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Not very helpful reports. One was a paragraph long and basically did a lit review. The other did not understand the basic identification strategy in the paper. Editor like the paper but their hands were tied, I guess.

2017

11/19/17

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Helpful and fair referee reports. Would submit again.

2018

06/01/18

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2012

12/30/12

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

~5 weeks. Okay referee reports. Editor read the paper too and added some short comments. One ref decided to the opportunity to pimp their own working paper.

2014

09/20/14

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Very good referee reports - largely positive but requiring some modifications, deleting one section. Editor also read the paper and took the call - explained that the paper was better suited at a good field journal given referee assessments of contribution to literature. Process seemed very fair.

2013

12/04/13

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Less than a month for two strong referee reports on a non-experimental paper: useful suggestions and some parts of the paper were obviously not clear enough, although no intractable issues so rejection was disappointing. Editor also read the paper and agreed with referees. Fair decision.

2015

10/05/15

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Poor quality single report. Clearly done day before deadline. Editor did seem to have read the paper, possibly in more detail than the referee who comments several thing that was included in paper. Expected a bit better.

2015

06/22/15

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

3

2

0

Used reports from AER. Still took 3 months. Pulled a weak R&R. I then spent 2+ months revising, only to be rejected (after another two months), no new reports, but detailed comments from the editor. To be fair, some of the editors comments were sharp. He just wanted me to write a different paper. Still, I lost 7 months overall. Another awful experience -- but par for the course.

2016

11/04/16

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

some useful comments, but clear that the referee didn't spend a lot of time on the paper, nor take much effort to follow bits of it that weren't conventional.

2015

05/20/15

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

Received 2 very nice and 1 okay-ish report. Editor's letter mentioned a 2-1 split in favor of rejection, so she rejected. Unhappy with the outcome of course, but pleased with the process and the handling

2018

09/10/18

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

3

3

2

Two reports of middling quality. Both the referees pimped their own tangentially related paper (yes, the same one). At least the turnaround was quick.

2012

04/28/14

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Very efficient process. Two excellent referee reports. Editor read the paper, added some comments of her own.

2011

04/28/14

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

6 weeks

2013

09/23/13

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Bad experience overall, although the reports came quickly. The reports were largely useless. One referee for sure did not read the paper as pointed things which were actually in the paper. The other referee was of low quality. Sadly, from the comments of the editor it was clear that she did not read the paper careully either, otherwise she would not have written the coments we got on the rejection letter. Good to be fast, but quality of feedback should be taken care of more at this journal.

2014

08/17/14

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

0

N/A

1

2 weeks, ok ref report

2012

12/24/12

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

good reports

2012

06/13/14

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Useless reports. Poor / no justification for decision. Expected better from an AEJ

2016

07/03/16

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Nice words from Editor. Ref reports quite useful

2014

03/12/15

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

4

1

2

Bad to useless reports after a longish delay. One referee openly mentioned s/he doesnt like the method used in the paper. The other clearly did not understand what is going on and wrote some junk. Clearly, this journal is the main outlet for randomized trial papers and not much else.

2014

11/26/14

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Sad...but at least it is very quick

2017

07/06/17

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

Editor sends paper just to his/her peers with predefined ideas. Top scholars if it comes to RCTs, but no broaded view. Clearly a club journal.

2015

12/20/16

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

6 weeks

2015

08/10/15

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject after about 10 days

2013

07/07/13

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected within two weeks. Fit justification

2017

08/17/17

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rejected in 24 hrs, no reason given. No evidence that the editor read even the abstract. But then again it was my fault, I didn't run an experiment!

2014

07/14/15

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

3 weeks to desk reject. Some warm words from the editor. He wanted to give the paper a careful read and this was not possible immediately. He, however, had the balls to apologize for the delay. Submission fee refund. Would submit again.

2017

12/20/17

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Got desk reject within 2 weeks. Rejection based on fit. Apparent that editor read the paper.

Weak reports with many assertaions that were simply untrue. Yet editor made some good comments.

2013

03/11/14

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

In-depth, high quality referee reports. Tone of the reports harsher than at better journals.

2012

04/29/14

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

2013

02/18/14

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Fair decision. Mostly good comments, though not given much detail about main criticism.

2015

01/26/16

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

3 reports: 2 of them really good, one mediocre.

2018

07/25/18

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

Two straightforward R&R recommendations from referees. Editor rejected based on own concerns.

2014

07/17/14

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

About 10 weeks from submission to referee reject. One positive review, one negative, referee took the side of the negative.

2017

08/06/18

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Very fast. Nice letter. Other outlet probably more suitable.

2017

06/10/17

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

3 reports, very quick. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint).

2016

08/19/16

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Quick response. Reports detailed and helpful.

2017

06/02/17

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

2012

12/25/12

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Very good reports. Not general interest enough.

2015

04/05/16

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

very very good reports

2012

01/01/13

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

3 reports, very quick. (2 very good reports, and 1 did not understand the paper and went full on complaint).

2016

08/19/16

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

Very nice comments from the Editor

2017

09/30/17

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Rejected with 2 reviews on the grounds of insufficient contribution to literature. 3rd review was pending. One recommended reject, the other R&R. Some good comments from reviewers, but all focused on marginal issues. Not much insight from the editor, whose concerns were rather vague.

2016

07/13/16

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2016

03/08/17

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Good enough experience and fair. Suggested field journal.

2015

01/19/16

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

editor obviously read the paper (indicated by reference to appendix figure in the letter); nice and helpful comments

2014

11/11/14

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in 6 hours. Recommended field journal, and it was in fact eventually published in the top field journal.

2012

07/07/14

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2 week desk reject. Formulaic letter. At least the fee is refunded.

2017

06/02/17

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast. Editor read the paper and deskrejected in less than a week.

2016

10/19/16

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Another desk reject at AEJ: Policy. I am just not part of the club. The second time I was told that my results were "not surprising".

2018

10/31/18

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected within 6 hours.

2012

12/21/12

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Desk rejected in a bit more than two weeks. The editor did give us advice to split the paper in two, although he didn't really provide a justification for rejection. (As we've seen, courtesy of Raj Chetty and Diamond/Mirrlees, sometimes they split your paper and accept.)

2016

06/06/16

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2014

06/03/14

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast. Nice letter from co-editor.

2016

05/29/16

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Clear editor had read the paper, helpful comments

2015

08/11/15

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Very quick response. Editor obviously read over the paper and gave a couple of helpful comments.

2012

01/08/13

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

several days. frustrating, because paper not assigned to the editor who works in my field

2015

09/27/15

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

12/23/13

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Accepted

3

3

2

Good experience. The editor, Richard Rogerson, is very careful and handles the paper in a timely manner.

2014

12/18/16

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Accepted

6

1

3

Great experience. Referees and editor reports were incredibly useful

2012

02/21/14

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

editor very helpful. 1 good report and 1 not so good.

2014

10/04/15

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Useful reports, good summary by editor. Would submit again.

2017

11/30/17

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Good experience. Fast and serious journal. Fair points by referees

2014

04/04/14

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. wanted to reject from the outset. editor(s) provided good comments too. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. good process overall

2018

07/14/18

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2 referee reports: 1 very detailed recommending revisions; other useless. wanted to reject from the outset. editor(s) provided good comments too. but would not give me a chance to deliver the revisions. good process overall

2018

07/14/18

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2012

03/26/13

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Editor (Rogerson) makes some encouraging comments but cannot hide the fact that the referees were not really that enthusiastic about the paper, even if they couldn't find much to criticize. Would submit again.

2014

10/09/14

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Paper very close to editor's (Rogerson) field of interest. One rubbish review from a referee who had no idea what the paper was about. The other review was somewhat on point in its criticism, though I can'r give him/her the credit as the shortcoming was itself mentioned in the paper. While harping on the issue, provided no insights as to how one can go about it. Not to say, the shortcoming is an accepted norm till one finds a better way. Very, very disappointed!

2016

04/03/17

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Good experience. 1 extremely helpful report and 2 so so ones.

2015

04/08/16

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

2011

12/22/12

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Good report. Rejected for a good reason.

2015

02/04/16

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Very good experience. Good feedback from AE too.

2012

01/21/13

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Shitty ref report. He only mentioned that I failed to mention a lot of papers who were all by the same person

2012

07/13/13

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Overall experience is good. The editor read the paper carefully and made helpful comments. One report very useful, and the other two not that much.

2014

10/24/14

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Useful reports.

2016

03/16/17

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

Really bad experience (Midrigan was the editor). Just one very low quality report. It just decided not to believe the empirical analysis. Also, did not bother to understand the theoretical contribution. Disappointed

2018

03/22/18

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2011

08/02/13

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Extremely fast and thoughtful. It is a pity it was rejected, but I appreciate the quick response.

2016

03/23/17

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2011

12/22/12

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rogerson very quickly pointed out the paper did not merit publication. Very good experience: I wish all my rejected submissions were as fast and polite.

2017

05/31/17

American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Good feedback from eitor, very quick desk reject

2015

03/28/16

American Economic Journal: Microeconomics

Pending

0

N/A

2

Second round--took less than a month to get 2 detailed second reports from referees--impressive!

Had a theory paper accepted to AER earlier this months overcoming mostly negative reviewers. Even though the outcome is positive, I blame the editor for not selecting competent enough referees to begin with.

2016

10/31/18

American Economic Review

Accepted

6

6

2

2010

12/22/12

American Economic Review

Accepted

4

4

3

My paper on the "The Impact of MTV's 16 and Pregnant on Teen Childbearing" was quickly accepted due to its relevance and awesome nature.

2014

12/03/15

American Economic Review

Accepted

3

1

3

2012

05/08/13

American Economic Review

Accepted

5

10

3

5 months first RR, 5 months second RR, 2 weeks final acceptance

2010

12/21/12

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

4

4

3

All referee reports were gave entirely stylistic comments with no real grounds for rejection. Kinda pissed.

2014

10/16/14

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

One very good, detailed, and positive report. The other negative and low-quality. The low-quality report won out...

2014

07/01/15

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2012

12/27/12

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2011

12/20/12

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

A fair process.

2011

04/02/14

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

2012

11/01/13

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

2012

12/20/12

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2011

12/20/12

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

4

Fair rejection. Contribution not new enough. Very good reports

2016

03/04/17

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

7

N/A

3

2012

05/15/13

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

One decent report. Two short ones that showed no effort whatsoever.

2014

07/24/14

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Good reports. One report is esp helpful.

2017

11/13/17

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject.

2017

06/03/18

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

2013

07/05/13

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

3

3

One referee said "take it", two said "we dislike coauthor, he published something similar in psych journal, do not take".

2013

09/19/13

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2016

02/28/18

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Good comments, well rejected

2013

04/06/13

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

AER Insights: very general reviews, nothing to improve the paper contentwise, but will help to improve the writeup until the next reject.

Most of the refs did not read the paper, or only skimmed it. Many, many factual errors about the paper. Refs gave some okay minor comments but no big, subtantive critiques. The results just didn't fit their priors.

2017

07/10/17

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

Contribution not new enough relative to the existing literature.

2015

06/11/16

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

8

N/A

3

3 polite reports say it is interesting but too simple for aer

2013

01/15/14

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

Two sloppy reports, one useful. Good experience in general, the editor recommended a field journal.

2016

05/07/16

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Good referees

2012

03/18/13

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2012

12/21/12

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2014

08/19/15

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

4

Lengthy, in-depth reports. One positive, three negative. Not much to complain about.

2015

12/02/15

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Was a longshot. Getting a reference to AEJ Applied was worth it.

2014

03/31/15

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

A short piece from an expert in the field. Slightly more informative than a desk rejection. Appreciate the quick turnaround.

2017

01/03/18

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

5

N/A

0

2010

08/02/13

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

0

N/A

3

Good experience overall, only took 2 weeks, two short reports, one very useful.

2017

07/10/17

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

2016

01/30/17

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

6

N/A

0

Fair experience. 3 reports. Referees ok, not great.

2014

10/08/15

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

8

N/A

3

nothing special. referees said "nice but not great"

2013

02/20/14

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2012

01/09/13

American Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

6 weeks for two reasonable referee reports. Rejection reason: not general interest enough. Would try again.

Desk rejected after one week with kind words from co-editor and recommended field journal

2015

08/21/15

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Kind words by editor

2012

12/24/12

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2015

04/19/16

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2016

12/09/17

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Recommended field journal (JIE )

2017

09/10/17

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

1 Week (Desk Reject)

2018

08/27/18

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Moffitt desk rejected, suggested a field journal.

2010

01/11/13

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Uninformative decision

2018

09/23/18

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

2012

12/21/12

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

About a week to desk reject

2015

08/01/15

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Quick return, nice words.

2015

06/03/15

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast reject

2015

10/04/15

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Generic letter saying the paper was not fit to general interest journal. No letter from an Associate Editor, so no idea about who rejected the paper. At least turnaround time was fast: 14 days.

2017

08/17/17

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Kind words by editor, though weird reasoning

2012

04/04/13

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

2012

12/21/12

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

8 days to desk rejection. Suggested a field journal

2012

07/13/13

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2 weeks. Nice letter from the editor.

2016

05/24/16

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in

2015

04/07/15

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Recommended a field journal by the editor.

2013

06/11/13

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2013

06/19/13

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject from Bertrand with zero comments in 15 days.

2016

09/15/16

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

less than 2 weeks, recommended field journal

2015

07/15/15

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject after two weeks. Generic letter. Disappointing as paper got some fine ref reports in another top journal and revised.

2018

07/13/18

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

AER Insights: Generic rejection without any thought or suggestion. Doesn't seem it was read beyond the title. Thanks Amy!

2018

05/15/18

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Took about two weeks. Editor appeared to have at least glanced at the paper.

2009

01/29/13

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

within 2 weeks desk rejected by Penny Goldberg. Did get a field journal suggestion and a refund of submission fees.

2016

08/03/16

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/25/12

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in 2 weeks, editor recommended sending the paper to a field journal. Glad that they didn't waste my time.

2017

11/15/17

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Under 2 weeks for a desk reject. Editor was very kind. Suggested a more specialized journal. Said they would refund the submission fee, which is nice.

2015

11/02/15

American Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

3 weeks. editor asked to AE who said "nice, but not enough". Both read, understood and gave a few comments. Sounds fair.

2016

09/19/16

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Accepted

2

2

2

One good referee report. The other referee has no idea what I am doing.

2012

10/02/13

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Accepted

2

3

3

2014

07/06/16

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Accepted

3

3

2

Quick reviews, reasonable comments.

2012

02/28/14

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Three high quality referee reports. Fair decision and process

2018

08/29/18

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Referees were obviously a bad choice for this topic. Both only read half the manuscript and criticized the toy model that motivated the novel techniques in the latter half.

2016

01/17/17

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2 mildly positive reviews, editor shot it down

2014

08/07/14

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

Split decision. Two reports were reasonable and one report was very low quality.

2016

08/17/16

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

3

3

2

Rejected after revision, very good comments in initial round. Ref #1 created new issues after I addressed his first round.

2013

09/03/14

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

Just one referee report. Referee says R&R, but editor decides to reject outright. Useless comments. Not surprised to hear that the impact of the journal is going down.

2013

06/21/14

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2012

08/02/13

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Very good and helpful referee reports even though it is a rejection.

2016

03/09/17

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

one good, one bad

2012

08/02/13

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

One very good review, two quite missed points. Some helpful comments.

2012

04/25/13

American Journal of Health Economics

Accepted

3

1

2

Very good comments from both reviewers and the editor, Frank Sloan. Frank asked us to revise two more rounds after the reviewers are OK with the paper. I have to admit that Frank is the best editor I ever met. Strongly recommend this journal for health economists!

2014

03/12/15

American Journal of Health Economics

Accepted

1

3

2

Highly efficient process

2016

01/14/18

American Journal of Health Economics

Accepted

2

1

2

Fast, knowledgeable referees, and good comments. Highly recommended.

2016

06/17/16

American Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Referees mixed. Low quality comments from Frank Sloan.

2016

05/17/17

American Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

7

7

2

Worst. Journal. Ever. One extremely hostile report written by someone who is clearly trying to delay my results from coming out and another one paragraph report recommending minor revisions. The editor did not read the paper and just sided with the hostile referee. This journal is a joke. They will delay and reject any papers on topics that someone at Duke also works on.

2017

12/09/17

American Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Horrible reports. It seems like one of the reviewers do not even read my paper.The suggestions are nonsense.

2018

05/17/18

American Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Failed to notify me of rejection. Found out it was rejected only by contacting them.

2016

12/14/16

American Law and Economics Review

Accepted

3

1

2

Very pleasant experience. The editor was quick and helpful.

2014

12/31/16

American Law and Economics Review

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Worst experience of my life. One referee does not follow simple math, immediately assumes the model is wrong and the editor takes his side. Same referee takes about half an hour to conclude the math is wrong, yet takes 5 months to submit his report. The other referee recommended revision.

2014

04/23/15

American Law and Economics Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Horrible experience. The editor said the paper was too similar to another paper, which was not published and cannot be found online. Will never submit here.

2015

10/31/15

American Political Science Review

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

2005

08/02/13

American Political Science Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Rejected for not have a theoretical contribution.

2017

11/19/17

Annales d'Economie et de Statistique

Accepted

4

3

2

Excellent reports

2012

09/24/13

Annales d'Economie et de Statistique

Accepted

6

1

2

2006

08/03/13

Annales d'Economie et de Statistique

Accepted

0

N/A

2

2006

08/03/13

Annals of Finance

Accepted

3

3

1

Smooth process.

2017

11/07/17

Annals of Finance

Ref Reject

2

2

2

Rejected but with excellent reports. The journal is higher than B

2015

08/01/17

Annals of Finance

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

one good, one bad

2012

01/14/13

Annals of Finance

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

rejected for small contribution

2016

08/01/17

Annals of Regional Science

Pending

0

N/A

0

Hard to believe. Inquired about my submission after 7 months, got answer that revision time "totally depends on the reviewers". Withdrew paper after one year without signs of life. Was contacted again after another two years promising that my paper was to be considered, and say yes please do. Lastly withdrew for good after another six months. all in all four years without ever seeing a referee report.

After 10 months, my manuscript was still listed as "awaiting referee assignment", and no one at the journal would respond to my e-mails about the paper, so I withdrew it. Complete waste of 10 months and $200. Journal is basically a scam now.

2013

07/15/14

Applied Economics

Pending

12

N/A

1

R&R after almost one year...too slow...poor report...but with a good result...

2017

04/03/18

Applied Economics

Accepted

3

1

1

Very different than my past experience. Applied Economics was usually getting back to me in 6 months or even more, this time I had great experience. Very efficient and fast.

2017

02/07/18

Applied Economics

Accepted

2

1

1

2 months to R&R, revisions accepted by editor about a week after re-submission. Good experience

2017

02/19/18

Applied Economics

Accepted

8

1

2

Revision accepted by editor within two days after re-submission. Good experience

2017

04/29/18

Applied Economics

Accepted

4

2

2

2014

06/04/15

Applied Economics

Accepted

11

1

1

Very long time to receive the first decision (major revision). Only one referee report in 11 months? Comments were quite simple, I resubmitted after one month, and the editor accepted the paper after 40 days.

2017

09/12/18

Applied Economics

Accepted

4

1

2

Accepted 3 days after resub even though the initial decision was RR with 'major revisions'

2016

07/05/16

Applied Economics

Accepted

0

N/A

0

10 days, very efficient, nice editor

2013

04/22/13

Applied Economics

Accepted

2

2

2

Very efficient, good reports. One referee read the paper line by line and gave constructive comments. The other referee was also good and liked the paper.

2014

09/30/14

Applied Economics

Accepted

5

2

1

A bit slow, but good comments by the referee. The paper was accepted quickly after revision. Overall, good experience.

2013

12/18/14

Applied Economics

Accepted

7

1

2

The editor Mark Taylor accepted the paper after one day of the last re-submission. Very fast experience at last

My first submission in AE and it is the best experience ever. Editor Prof. David Peel is a very nice guy.

2018

08/25/18

Applied Economics

Accepted

6

1

2

Excellent Experience. The referee reports were good.

2016

04/06/17

Applied Economics

Accepted

4

1

2

2014

10/16/14

Applied Economics

Accepted

12

1

1

The revision was accepted one week after resubmission. Good. But first response took a whole year.

2017

04/18/18

Applied Economics

Accepted

4

2

1

Great experience. A good referee report and very efficient editor.

2013

07/16/14

Applied Economics

Ref Reject

15

N/A

2

After waiting for 1 year and 3 months, I received 2 reports. One is a R&R type, and the other referee said that he was not interested in the topic, nothing about the details of the paper. Will never submit to Applied Economics any more..

2010

07/15/14

Applied Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2014

05/27/14

Applied Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Rubbish and incorrect comments by one reviewer. The reviewer didn't even bother to read after page 8.

2017

10/08/17

Applied Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Meaningless reviews. We resubmitted to AEPP and the paper received minor revisions after the second R&R

2016

08/18/17

Applied Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

"I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ"

2014

11/18/14

Applied Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

"I find the overall contribution too small to justify publication in AEJ"

2014

11/18/14

Applied Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in a week.

2012

02/01/13

Applied Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Nothing more frustrating than paying to submit a paper that was desk rejected after 2 months with no reason given for rejection...

2014

12/18/14

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

6

1

1

6 months to first response, then a two sentence ref report, one sentence of which was clarified extremely quickly and one that entailed a ton of extra work. Good points, though, and overall a good experience. Much better than regular EL.

2014

05/14/15

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

4

N/A

0

Accepted without need for further revisions.

2016

11/29/17

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

2

N/A

0

No referee reports, just got notified I was accepted. Very smooth process.

2015

10/07/15

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

Unbelievably fast and helpful. Much better than plain vanilla Economics Letters. Editor was respectful and not full of himself.

2014

01/16/15

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

3

N/A

1

Single ref report had three very minor questions. I sent off the revision less than 24 hours after the R&R. Paper was accepted two days later. Easiest publication of my life! 3 months was a little long to wait, though.

2018

05/04/18

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

9

N/A

0

Very different experience from the first time. Took 9 months for acceptance.

2017

03/28/18

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

8

N/A

0

Accepted as it is. Too long waiting time.

2016

06/20/17

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

2

1

1

Relatively high submission fee. Good helpful report asking for few corrections. Revision accepted three hours after submission.

2015

02/09/16

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

0

N/A

0

Accepted after two weeks

2010

07/26/13

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

2

N/A

0

2015

09/28/15

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

very fast!

2017

10/20/17

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

3

1

1

2016

01/24/17

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

1

N/A

0

Smooth process.

2016

12/02/16

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

8

1

1

2017

07/03/18

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

3

1

1

2016

01/24/17

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

0

N/A

0

Got accepted after a week. Great experience.

2016

12/07/16

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

4

N/A

0

Accepted, no referee reports. Desk accept?

2016

06/02/16

Applied Economics Letters

Accepted

0

N/A

0

Got accepted after a week. Great experience.

2016

12/07/16

Applied Economics Letters

Ref Reject

5

N/A

0

5 months + 125USD for a referee rejection with a report of about 21 lines....SHAME

2017

12/27/17

Applied Economics Letters

Ref Reject

0

N/A

1

Paper rejected based on the editor's phone conversation with the referee.

2013

07/31/13

Applied Economics Letters

Ref Reject

3

N/A

0

Not clear if I waited 3 months for a desk a reject or a referee reject.... The lack of referee reports makes me think it is the latter. Which....a 3 month wait on with an expense submission fee for desk reject.

2015

10/28/15

Applied Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

The referee report was more appropriate for R&R. The (anonymous) editor rejected the paper without reading it. Bad experience.

2017

04/09/18

Applied Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

One line "referee report". Argued lack of fit, dispite publishing a paper on the subject a few months ago

It took me 7 months to recieve a major revision required; however, my second revision is accepted in just 2 weeks!! Very efficient indeed!!!!!!!

2012

09/17/13

Applied Financial Economics

Accepted

7

N/A

0

Acceted as is; not a single change requested.

2013

09/25/14

Applied Financial Economics

Ref Reject

8

N/A

1

half a page report. super slow for what they give.

2018

03/18/18

B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics

Pending

2

N/A

2

Pretty fast, 1 high quailty report. Working on my R&R now.

2017

05/26/17

B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics

Accepted

1

2

1

very fast response and useful comments from a referee

2014

11/06/17

B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics

Accepted

4

2

2

Good experience

2016

12/09/16

B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics

Accepted

6

2

1

Very efficiently run journal (at least my experience). Referee report was reasonable and improved the paper.

2018

11/05/18

B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics

Accepted

2

2

1

RR with major changes, then RR with minor changes, then accepted after 1 week. Referee report good, though annoying as "#$"# on one point. Didn't let it go, Editor told him to "#"# off and published the paper anyway. Helpful comments from the editor (besides the usual thy shall cite my papers). Good experience.

2013

07/17/14

B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics

Accepted

5

3

3

2011

01/11/17

B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

After waiting for 6 months, I sent a polite email to the editor asking if the paper fell through the cracks. Got a rejection within a couple of days. The rejection came with a useless referee report.

2014

04/03/15

B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

I regret to inform you that we do not consider this work to be of sufficient interest to our readership to warrant publication. Could've desk-rejected instead of two useless referee reports.

2 straightforward reports with fair criticism. Accepted after revision within 1 month. Very clear and good process.

2015

08/31/15

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Accepted

1

2

1

Very efficient process. Received 1st response within a month with a very helpful referee report. After that Editor took 2 months to answer positively to my R&R. Overall, it was a smooth process.

2016

02/21/17

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Accepted

3

1

2

2016

09/09/16

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Ref Reject

1

N/A

0

Ref rejected in 3 weeks. Fair report but not anything that couldn't be corrected in R&R. Rejection came on Easter morning.

2015

04/06/15

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience.

2015

06/09/16

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

I want to express my thankness to a refreee, who provded an exremly high quality report

2017

12/23/17

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

2011

01/11/13

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

Bad process. Four months for one sloppy report full of referee noise. Nothing substantial to improve the paper. Avoid this shitty journal.

2016

11/06/16

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

After 4 months it remained Under review and these comments I get from the Reviewer: "You have a good idea. However, it would probably help to read some of Joanna Lahey's work to get a sense of the state-of-art methods with these audit studies." Funny thing is Editor endorsed reviewer's response.

2017

03/12/18

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Though it is rejcted, I want to express my thankness to the refreee, who provdes a exremly high quality report

2017

12/22/17

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

One referee report was very good; the second was also modestly helpful.

2012

04/07/13

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Contrary to my earlier belief, this journal does not give you a quick outcome. Or rather, the editor is very lazy to follow up on the reports. One report was very positive, but the second one looked like it was written in ten minutes citing four papers of his own. Really unprofessional.

2016

08/18/16

B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in one day. They kept the application fee.

2012

12/21/12

BE Journal of Theoretical Economics

Accepted

7

6

3

Referees asked for reasonable stuff. Made some changes, argued against other changes, got accepted.

2014

10/15/15

BE Journal of Theoretical Economics

Accepted

2

2

2

One (very) useful report and one useless, 5 months from submission to acceptance

That's right. It too me the editor 13 months to desk reject. In the meantime they lied to me saying that it was out for review and that they were awaiting referee scores. The journal is a joke!

2014

02/08/16

Bulletin of Economic Research

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

For a short paper, it took quite a longtime for deskreject without a single sentence relating to the paper.

2016

10/25/16

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Accepted

5

5

1

Professional co-editor and referee. Would try again in the future.

2016

05/04/18

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Accepted

6

6

2

good reports, great editor who replies promptly to queries

2012

05/18/13

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Accepted

6

5

3

Very tough journal with very extensive comments from 3 refs. Went from reject/resubmit to revise resubmit 1, revise resubmit 2, finally accepted. All queries tough but manageable - only difficulty was having 3 refs say sometimes contradictory things. Otherwise, great experience. Would submit here again.

2016

10/27/17

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Accepted

5

5

1

Professional co-editor and referee. Would try again in the future.

2016

05/04/18

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Accepted

5

5

1

Professional co-editor and referee. Would try again in the future.

2016

05/04/18

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

First experience with this journal. One referee gave very constructive comments, but referenced three papers by same person (I'm guess that's who referee was). Second ref put thought into it but was of a heterodox stripe that I'm not. And mentioned class struggle. Never would have won that person over.

2014

04/29/15

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

Reports were ok but nothing special, especially given the time that has passed... Contacting the editor twice did not result in speeding up the process (but we received at least a reply).

2016

08/09/17

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics

Accepted

6

5

2

2014

02/12/16

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics

Desk Reject

1

1

0

My paper was much of empirical. The editor emailed me after 6 days and said he read and liked the paper. And some more nice words. However, he said they cannot consider the paper for publication because it is not about Canada. And because he could not find theoretical contributions. Overall, not bad experience.

2017

08/03/17

Canadian Journal of Economics

Accepted

5

3

2

Constructive comments and Nice experimence!

2017

10/20/18

Canadian Journal of Economics

Accepted

4

4

3

Very good experience. Strongly recommend submitting there.

2017

05/14/18

Canadian Journal of Economics

Accepted

5

5

1

Would submit again. CJE is recovering.

2016

05/04/18

Canadian Journal of Economics

Accepted

5

3

2

Very good experience, competent referees and quick feedback after the resubmission.

2017

08/20/18

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Very good referee reports.

2014

05/07/15

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

One referee gave lots of great comments, while the other referee was pretty much useless.

2014

12/12/14

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

One negative report only after 5 months, but editor tried to get a second one within a couple of weeks. Finally rejected because contribution is too specific. Disappointing outcome, but OK overall experience

2016

06/02/17

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2012

12/20/12

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2015

10/05/16

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Two fair reports.

2014

01/24/15

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

The editor and referee claimed the results were nice but hardly adoptable to other more general problems.... they suggested a more spezialized on topic journal. all in all, a costly but friendly and competent experience

2016

03/11/17

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

2011

01/19/13

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

I urged the editor to give me reports 3 months after the initial submission. Decent reports, no complain.

2015

02/09/16

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Poor reports

2013

08/06/15

Canadian Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

One referee provided lots of helpful comments and even some ideas for future research. They also indicated that the paper was better suited to a a different journal. The other report was useless.

2014

04/20/15

Canadian Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject with what appeared to be constructive comments but on closer inspection were worthless (points already made in the paper). Kicker: next day got an email to renew my CEA membership to be able to keep submitting to CJE!

2018

10/26/18

Canadian Public Policy

Accepted

2

N/A

3

2015

07/03/15

Canadian Public Policy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2012

12/20/12

China Economic Review

Pending

1

N/A

2

Very quick. R&R. Two reports are ok.

2016

10/20/16

China Economic Review

Pending

2

N/A

1

very quick

2014

02/20/14

China Economic Review

Pending

2

1

2

2014

08/22/14

China Economic Review

Accepted

2

1

1

very efficient process

2014

06/04/15

China Economic Review

Accepted

2

1

2

2014

09/11/14

China Economic Review

Accepted

2

1

1

2014

04/21/14

China Economic Review

Accepted

1

1

3

get first response in 28 days. Good report. Amazing efficiency.

2016

06/10/16

China Economic Review

Accepted

6

3

2

2015

03/23/17

China Economic Review

Accepted

4

2

2

Good reports. Quick responds. Awesome experience.

2014

10/23/14

China Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/27/12

China Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/25/12

China Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Computational Economics

Accepted

5

1

1

Very high quality referee report. Reasonable requestsfor the R&R. Quickly accepted after the revisions were completed. Very pleasant experience.

2014

02/22/18

Computational Economics

Accepted

12

2

2

Fair and helpful reviews.

2012

09/16/14

Computational Economics

Accepted

1

1

1

possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. smooth in general.

2015

07/14/15

Computational Economics

Accepted

6

1

1

2009

01/04/13

Computational Economics

Accepted

1

1

1

possible that the editor reviewed it himself, but was a fairly straightforward accept, trivial revisions only. smooth in general.

2015

07/14/15

Computational Economics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

Took 3 month for a simple "out of scope" notification!!

2015

06/10/15

Computational Statistics and Data Analysis

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Report from Reviewer 1 is not given. Receive reports from Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. Most horrible and bizarre referee reports. Ex: CDF was derived to construct the likelihood of a discrete choice model, a reviewer writes the author does not use the derived CDF. Will never submit to this journal again. Stay away!

2017

09/22/17

Contemporary Accounting Research

Ref Reject

2

2

2

Very mixed report quality. One felt like it was literally written 30 minutes before the deadline. The referee acted as if I didn't cite and discuss papers mentioned in the report. The other was much more careful. The referee checked my citations and offered helpful comments.

2015

01/12/16

Contemporary Economic Policy

Pending

7

4

3

Weak editor. One good referee, one ok, one terrible. Terrible referee did not understand LATE and simply could not be satisfied. Took 3 rounds for editor to realize terrible referee was a crackpot. Will not submit again.

2016

07/13/18

Contemporary Economic Policy

Accepted

4

3

1

The reviewer was excellent, made the paper much better with his/her comments. Excellent handling.

2014

03/22/17

Contemporary Economic Policy

Accepted

3

2

2

Super fast and clear feedback. I really appreciated the clarity the editor provided in helping to navigate the referee reports. In really sped things up.

2016

10/31/17

Contemporary Economic Policy

Accepted

3

3

1

Outstanding referee reports.

2011

01/26/13

Contemporary Economic Policy

Accepted

2

2

2

Very good clarification and additional comments from Associate Editor

2012

10/11/14

Contemporary Economic Policy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

First report was helpful, second one was literally 2 lines. Editor didn't pay any attention to the reports. Extremely poor experience

2015

01/15/16

Contemporary Economic Policy

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Extremely poor experience for a journal charging submission fees. It took 5 months to get 2 rushed reports of one and a half paragraphs that show both econometric inaptitude and selective reading. A grad student could do better!

Two referee reports, one critical, one encouraging. Then one round of R&R and second referee changed his mind. Still my favorite rejection of all time - used Shakespeare in a footnote, and first referee (whose English was subpar) said that the footnote was "very poorly written." To summarize, this reviewer apparently thought he had better English than Shakespeare. Comical journal.

2012

01/16/15

Contemporary Economic Policy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

one of the reports was literaly 3 sentences. Although the other referee was positive, editor rejected it

Editor sent it to peer review in one day. Fast and very polite response.

2016

07/09/16

Defence and Peace Economics

Accepted

4

1

2

very good communication with the editor

2015

06/07/15

Defence and Peace Economics

Accepted

3

3

1

Good communication with the editor, very helpful referee report

2012

12/05/13

Demography

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Two horribly low quality reports. Neither of the two reviewers seemed t have read the paper. Each report was one small paragraph long. Horrible experience, and it is not even that good a journal!

2015

05/06/16

Demography

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected within 7 days. Editor wrote a few short comments.

2018

03/19/18

Demography

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

desk rejection because it is not a good fit and i am asked to send it to an economic journal --- while i mainly discussed with a very nice sociologist when writing this paper.

2014

07/07/14

Demography

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Six weeks for a desk reject with no reasons offered

2013

01/14/14

Demography

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Deputy Editor rejected the paper with insufficient contribution and a comment that doesn't make sense.

2014

07/28/14

Development and Change

Pending

0

N/A

0

2 months, the article is still under internal review...

2015

03/13/15

Development Policy Review

Pending

12

N/A

0

DPR had my manuscript for over a year, and never even got it under review. I inquired a few times, and they responded promptly and politely, but sitting on a manuscript for a year is obviously unacceptable. I withdrew the manuscript and will never submit here again. Awful experience.

2017

05/07/18

Development Studies

Accepted

3

3

2

2 reviewers, 1 poor, 1 quite demanding and useful. Two rounds of R&R!

2014

11/18/14

Development Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

7 days no comments

2012

12/21/12

Eastern Economic Journal

Accepted

3

3

2

Helpful referee reports. Good experience, great turnaround.

2013

12/18/13

Eastern Economic Journal

Accepted

2

1

2

Very helpful comments from reviewers.

2014

07/25/14

Eastern Economic Journal

Accepted

4

3

2

good reports. fair and timely process.

2013

06/13/14

Eastern Economic Journal

Accepted

0

1

2

Expedient. Excellent comments from reviewers

2013

07/25/14

Eastern European Economics

Accepted

3

3

0

The article was accepted by the referees

2007

09/07/14

Ecological Economics

Accepted

2

4

4

2009

01/09/13

Ecological Economics

Accepted

2

1

2

Useful and interesting comments

2016

03/24/17

Ecological Economics

Accepted

3

1

2

journal has a reputation for being out of the mainstream of econ. but i think it is an important one that should be considered a bonafide econ journal. it has papers by good authors, like Kenneth Arrow. it has qualitative stuff, which i do not think should be considered non-economic.

2014

11/27/16

Ecological Economics

Accepted

4

4

3

Detailed and useful referee reports

2010

01/22/13

Ecological Economics

Accepted

4

4

3

14 months from submission to publication online. In print a couple of weeks later.

2010

12/21/12

Ecological Economics

Accepted

4

N/A

1

Useful and encouraging comments from referees, who appeared very interested in improving the paper and offering helpful suggestions to do so.

2016

02/07/17

Ecological Economics

Ref Reject

5

3

3

Rejected after first re-submission, too demanding referees

2012

04/16/13

Ecological Economics

Ref Reject

4

4

2

Very bad reports from non economists. Political interests there, i will not submit to this journal ever again

2013

06/30/14

Ecological Economics

Ref Reject

12

N/A

1

2010

12/20/12

Ecological Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in 3 days.

2018

04/17/18

Ecological Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Desk rejected with 1 sentence after 2 months. I have the feeling that the editor did not read the paper!!!

2016

03/01/17

Ecological Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

The editor informed us that the contribution of the paper was not high enough for this journal although the topic has been examined in the past by other papers in this Journal

2016

10/05/16

Ecological Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

Received desk rejection from one of the editors quoting results completely unrelated to my paper. This editor must have not bothered to read my paper or mistook it for another one. I contacted the journal about that but no response. I am very surprised by this unprofessional oversight. Admittedly, they must receive a lot of submissions, but that does not excuse this.

2016

11/19/16

Econometric Reviews

Pending

0

N/A

0

Horrible! Two weeks and they not assigned a manuscript ID number.

2017

09/22/17

Econometric Reviews

Accepted

9

8

4

two years is a bit too long, especially given that it will take more than a year before the paper appears in the journal

2013

11/16/15

Econometric Reviews

Accepted

4

6

2

One reviewer seemed to think a clean accept, one was 'not really convinced'. Editor gave me chance to convince other referee.

2013

10/28/14

Econometric Reviews

Ref Reject

14

N/A

0

Unacceptable waiting time. The referee reports were crap (minor points without really saying anything about the research question, the methodology and the results of the paper). After 10+ years in a research institution, counless submission, countless rejections, and some papers published in highly ranked journal, this was definitely my worst experience ever.

2013

11/06/14

Econometric Reviews

Ref Reject

4

1

2

2015

08/13/15

Econometric Reviews

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

Overall experience is horrible. Took 7 months to give 1 referee report with just 5 lines. Will never submit again to ER. Stay away!

2017

04/05/18

Econometric Reviews

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

2 mildly useful reports. one referee pointed to their own working paper which is still not published (jan 2017)

2015

01/14/17

Econometric Theory

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Positive: 1 high quality referee report and some comments by the co-editor; Negative: 2 other referee reports of medium to very low quality

2015

05/29/15

Econometric Theory

Ref Reject

12

N/A

1

Reminded several times and after waiting 1 year got one referee report. Summary understated contribution of the paper making it looking boring. Rejection based on technical point, which could be fixed withing 2 weeks. Very poor experience.

2015

06/07/17

Econometric Theory

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

very good reports

2013

03/18/14

Econometric Theory

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

No arguments were provided

2017

07/17/17

Econometrica

Accepted

4

4

3

2008

11/17/13

Econometrica

Accepted

3

3

4

2017

04/27/18

Econometrica

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

3 good ref reports

2015

09/13/15

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2012

12/28/12

Econometrica

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

2013

11/01/13

Econometrica

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

good referee reports

2012

05/03/13

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Quick, very good feedback. Did not make the cut unfortunately, but will submit there again. No regrets

2018

05/14/18

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

All three referees are weak on maths

2014

02/11/15

Econometrica

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

2017

02/28/18

Econometrica

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Two reports are suggestive but the other one was a low-quality. It seems that the last guy didn't read the paper carefully and I wonder how it could take 4month to write such a poor report.

2017

09/10/17

Econometrica

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Fully ignorant referees

2014

02/11/15

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

2016

12/26/16

Econometrica

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Low-quality reports, waste of time.

2015

03/07/16

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Shockingly low quality reports that were nearly identical. Good for knowing what people didn't like, but not clear how to improve.

2016

09/10/16

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Three referee reports. One obviously senior who doesn't care, openly says didn't read some parts. Other two reports are fine, although one other also did not read a section, s/he says. All suggest major revision and change of approach. The senior is useless as s/he was not happy that the paper is against an established theory.

2017

07/13/18

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Good reports, not extremely helpful, but good

2015

05/26/15

Econometrica

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Two very helpful reports and encouraging letter from AE

2012

03/05/13

Econometrica

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

very good referee comments

2013

12/31/14

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

4

Detailed and constructive comments that were spot on from the editor. Result not general enough for ECMA. Referees all showed an understanding of the paper and suggestions were useful.

2017

02/27/18

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

5

2018

07/23/18

Econometrica

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Two referee reports very useful, pointing to the same concerns, one of them quite positive and friendly, providing numerous pathways to pursue in the future. Third report seemed written by a sage speaking in amharic, most statements were elliptical in nature, and we were left wondering what the referee's point had been. On the whole very good experience.

2015

05/03/15

Econometrica

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

2010

01/11/13

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

The rejection was fair but the referee report uninformative and boilerplate.

2017

09/23/18

Econometrica

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

reports not very insightful

2012

01/25/13

Econometrica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

no negative comments, just say that the contribution is not big enough for Econometrica, which is completely understandable.

2009

10/04/15

Econometrica

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

2012

12/20/12

Econometrica

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

02/15/13

Econometrica

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

desk reject with very short referee note

2014

12/22/14

Econometrica

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Paper too good for their journal. Recommend trying better journal.

2015

10/19/15

Econometrica

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

06/03/13

Econometrica

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fair decision. Useful letter from the editor.

2014

04/30/15

Econometrica

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

quick (7 days) desk reject

2017

07/10/17

Econometrics Journal

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

The contribution of the paper as it stands to be insu¢ cient for publication in The Econometrics Journal.

2014

05/12/15

Econometrics Journal

Ref Reject

1

1

2

A complete discrage. Pathetic referee reports. Stay away from this journal if you do not have a connection from inside. Just stay away!

2018

07/24/18

Econometrics Journal

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Referees basically thought contribution was too small to merit publishing.

2012

10/28/14

Econometrics Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2015

08/13/15

Econometrics Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2014

11/06/14

Econometrics Journal

Desk Reject

0

1

0

Desk rejection in 6 minutes with a "pretended" letter, which could be used for any paper. The editor claimed that himself and another associate editor read the paper. Unbelieveble how fast some journals work!!!!!

2013

06/21/14

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Pending

6

N/A

0

My paper has been under the status "with editor" after submission for almost one half year, and I have decided to withdraw the paper

2017

08/01/17

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Accepted

7

7

1

Had to email them to speed up the revision process. Minor changes, though. Cool editor.

2014

08/16/15

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Accepted

3

6

2

Journal response was quick. Took about 2.5-3 months for first response which detailed a lot of work - two R & R decisions, each of which took about 2 months for referees to get back on.

2011

12/04/13

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Accepted

12

12

2

Very long process. Apparently the assigned coeditor left and paper got stuck. But very quick process after contacting editorial office.

2012

07/24/16

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

2016

12/09/17

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Very good experience. Two referees were lukewarm but couldn't really point out too much that was wrong. Editor (Fafchamps) not just claimed to have an Associate Editor read it, but we got a whole page of useful comments from the AE.

2014

05/03/15

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Ref Reject

12

N/A

2

Long wait but not a bad experience overall, referee comments were useful.

2013

03/05/14

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2018

06/06/18

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

almost useless and the editor is too slow.

2013

05/27/14

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Ref Reject

8

N/A

1

One report from which you learn nothing

2012

03/07/13

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

2012

04/16/13

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Low-quality reports.

2014

11/06/14

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Desk Reject

4

3

2

Two very useful ref reports in the first round. Worked butt off to respond to them. Editor decided to not even send the revised paper back to the referees. What a terrible journal. Nonder they are going down in ranking in Dev Econ steadily

2013

06/01/15

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Very polite editor.

2014

03/05/14

Economic Development and Cultural Change

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Mentioned that they do not consider theoretical papers. Duh

2013

07/13/13

Economic History Review

Accepted

3

5

3

2014

01/27/16

Economic Inquiry

Pending

4

7

2

2 referee reports: first one, r&r; second one, reject and resubmit. editor read the paper and decided to give it an r&r.

The referees responded very quickly and with excellent, high quality reports. Co-Editor has read the paper carefully, offered detailed comments and a lot of help.

2012

07/27/14

Economic Inquiry

Accepted

3

3

2

Very useful referee reports. Professional editor.

2012

11/20/14

Economic Inquiry

Accepted

2

N/A

2

superfast handling

2013

05/29/14

Economic Inquiry

Accepted

4

5

2

2008

12/21/12

Economic Inquiry

Accepted

2

N/A

3

Very quick and extremely professional. Will submit there in the future.

2018

11/20/18

Economic Inquiry

Accepted

9

4

3

two good reports and one short report

2015

10/04/16

Economic Inquiry

Accepted

2

N/A

2

very efficient

2013

06/19/13

Economic Inquiry

Accepted

14

10

3

It is the worst experience I have ever had with a journal. Outcome was positive in the end, but I had to follow some nonsense instructions from the referees and the editor. I will never submit there again

2014

08/11/16

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

10

N/A

1

Rejected with only 1 referee reports and after waiting 10 months! Insane process and utterly inexperienced referee. Editor said he is sorry for the wait...

2015

10/08/15

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

11

N/A

2

2 very short reports after waiting 11 months and paying a crazy submission fee. Avoid that journal

One excellent referee report, and one decent one. Good experience overall

2014

04/23/14

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

After seven month the co-editor rejects the paper based on a report which is terrible. The referee did not understand the basic assumption of the model. Complete waste of time.

2014

05/10/15

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Fast Resposne in 10 week. One referee report that likes the research question but does not like thr approach. The main sugguestion is to come up with a theoretical model and erase half of the work done. Editor claims he agrees witht he referee but does not add an argumentation. It would be a positive experience if submission were free.

2014

02/05/15

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

2014

04/22/14

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Very fast and fair process, despite the negative outcome.

2013

11/06/13

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

14

N/A

0

took more than 1 year to get one referee report. AVOID it

2016

01/15/18

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

5

8

2

Worst experience so far. Long wait to hear back, the referees got changed, and then the editor rejected it based on issues that were known from the beginning. Do not submit there.

2013

11/03/14

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

13

N/A

3

Very long wait. 1 positive and 1 negative report. Editor sent a peper to a 3rd ref, which took forever to write another negative report.

2010

02/03/13

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

4 months with the editor before being sent to referees. 3 more months for two reports containing blatant mistakes and outrageous claims that have nothing to do with the paper. I suspect either grad students or people outside of the field. Either way, unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees.

2014

01/28/15

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

16

12

1

Most inefficient handling ever. Shame on Co-Editor.

2008

02/03/13

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Under review, it gets assigned to Co-editor Brennan. No progress in six months although I send emails to push. Main editor Wilson takes care of it. Two month later it is rejected and get two referee reports (fair enough there). Not a good experience. Wilson inform me, on average, EI first decision is in 67 days, but my six months delay is not due to neglect (YEAH RIGHT! FYI: Your editor sucks).

2017

03/16/18

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Only one semi-informative report. At least they are faster than their reputation.

2015

12/14/15

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

12

9

2

still waiting for the outcome of the second round. Worst experience with a journal so far.

2012

11/03/14

Economic Inquiry

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2010

01/02/13

Economic Inquiry

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Topic is too specfic...

2015

11/08/15

Economic Inquiry

Desk Reject

1

N/A

2

Desk rejection based on lack of fit, altough there were at least 4 papers published on the same topic in previous years. They keep the submission fees, very efficient cash cow!

2015

11/21/15

Economic Inquiry

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2014

09/17/14

Economic Inquiry

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2012

12/27/12

Economic Inquiry

Desk Reject

1

1

0

Unprofessional and incorrect comments by co-editor Rob Simmons. I have no problem receiving a desk-reject, but the stated reasons show no understanding of our research. This would be fine if desk-reject was motivated by "not a good fit" or such. Disappointing experience.

2015

11/18/15

Economic Inquiry

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

desk rejected after more than 2 months, very generic motivation (try a field journal), they took the submission fees and thanked me a lot for the payment!

2015

03/04/16

Economic Inquiry

Desk Reject

4

N/A

0

4 months for a desk rejection based on what it appears to be a very superficial reading of the abstract. Unacceptable for a journal that charges submission fees.

2014

10/28/14

Economic Inquiry

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk Reject in 2 weeks for not general interest enough. Editor recommended field journal submission.

2015

02/13/15

Economic Inquiry

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

The editor handling the paper had no idea about the literature. He made the most stupid argument to reject the paper. Commented that something we are doing is not correct, while all the papers in the field are doing the same. One of the papers has over 3000 citations. The least the editor could have done is to assign another editor.

2014

05/12/14

Economic Journal

Pending

4

N/A

2

one very good report

2012

01/25/13

Economic Journal

Accepted

2

2

3

Helpful and competent editor who made clear what were the important points to address. Good reports. Fast turnaround, I'm very happy with the experience.

2016

08/30/17

Economic Journal

Accepted

3

3

2

Quick process, very solid reports and editor comments.

2013

06/18/14

Economic Journal

Accepted

4

1

3

2012

08/02/13

Economic Journal

Accepted

5

3

2

2014

10/04/15

Economic Journal

Accepted

5

2

2

All reports were useful and very demanding

2011

03/19/13

Economic Journal

Accepted

4

5

2

good reports; excellent editor who acts like an additional referee.

2012

11/09/13

Economic Journal

Accepted

5

1

2

2011

12/21/12

Economic Journal

Accepted

4

2

2

Very helpful reports

2014

01/11/17

Economic Journal

Accepted

4

1

2

Excellent work by den Haan, providing even better feedback than two (good) referees.

2012

07/31/14

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

3

N/A

4

2013

01/29/14

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

2017

12/09/17

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

3 useful reports

2016

08/02/17

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

1 good report, 1 bad one, decent turnaround time

2015

06/30/15

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

3

3

2

Referees did not seem to like the paper based on the subject. Referees did not show good knowledge of the subject. Paper was poorly read by the referees.

2014

10/13/14

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

very useful referee reports

2012

08/02/13

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

One referee liked it, the other and the editor didn't. Some good comments though.

2015

10/13/15

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

5

10

2

only one report on first submission, 4 months for second round. Referee 1 happy with resubmission (no further comments), referee 2 suggested rejection or major rewriting. Paper rejected by editor. Long reports with some good comments

2015

09/26/17

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2013

06/14/13

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

1

N/A

0

A fairly high quality report, useful, within 24 days. Will submit again (other work, of course) on the basis of professionalism and treatment. High quality editing.

2013

07/17/14

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

8

N/A

3

Took way to long for three one page poor quality reports

2017

01/22/18

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Two referees, two weak R&Rs, editor rejects despite the recommendations of referees. Quite upsetting. If editor did not like the paper, then just desk reject!

2015

02/04/16

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Useless reports!

2016

08/21/16

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

8

N/A

3

2013

02/12/14

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Took 5 months in total, 2 reports, a paragraph each.

2017

10/02/17

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

One report was helpful; the other not.

2016

12/31/16

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Both negative, one fair, other illustrated misunderstanding of econometrics

2017

08/13/18

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

one so-so report and one excellent report

2013

01/23/14

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

3 Reports. 1 great, 1 so so, 1 absolutely trash (the referee only argued on the reliability of the benchmark case, which is a well established result in the literature!!!). High Quality Editing. Will submit again.

2016

05/25/17

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

The editor had good words about the paper but one ref didn't like it, so he rejected it. Would try again.

2015

12/21/16

Economic Journal

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Super quick process. Editor (Voth) was polite but did not say much. One report very solid and useful, another (two-paragraph one) looks confusing.

2017

03/15/18

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2018

05/14/18

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast desk reject (Ciccone), after few days. Was nice, encouraging, and motivated his decision to reject.

2012

02/18/13

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject - referred to field journal

2014

12/08/14

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Very quick response; desk rejection and recommendation to submit to field journal

2016

12/20/16

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick, professional, very acceptable decision.

2013

08/12/13

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2014

10/04/15

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2016

06/08/16

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in 1 week. Not general interest enough,

2017

10/16/17

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rejection after 3 days. The contribution of the paper is not suficient for the EJ. The Editor sugested the JIE.

Dest rejected in three days. "In order to speed up and improve the submission process for both authors and referees, we have raised the number of papers that we reject without seeking reports."

2015

03/26/15

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Kind and informed letter from editor. Not good enough for general interest. Suggested top field (JPubE in our case).

2016

03/09/17

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Bad experience overall. I needed to contact the editorial office to know who the editor was, if the paper was sent to referess and etcc, and this after more than a month that the paper was submitted. Notice that I submitted there on the basis of the widely publicized (EEA Gothenburg) fastness of this journal. In any case, after having contacted the editorial office the staff there were really nice and helpful and contacted the editor on my behalf. At the time the editor had still the paper sitting on his desk. After two weeks we got a desk rejection with a very impersonal letter which made us think that the editor did not even read the intro. Overall I think this journal should get a more diverse editorial board. Some people are simply too narrow in the scope of their research to be editors of a journal which claims to be of "general interest"

2014

08/17/14

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2011

12/31/12

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

One week desk rejection with form letter. $65 down the drain!

2016

09/20/16

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

1 week: nice, but no fit with general interest. Suggested field journal.

2016

10/10/16

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Took a little over a month for the desk reject and no refunds.

2015

06/17/15

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Just a couple of days for rejection, he had good words to say but paper too specific for general-interest. Some decent comments nevertheless.

2016

05/06/17

Economic Journal

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Quick desk rejection; field journals recommende

2018

09/30/18

Economic Modelling

Pending

0

N/A

0

waiting 19 months as of today, sent 3 reminfers, Hall nor anybody else from the journal havent responded so far to any of my emails

2013

08/12/14

Economic Modelling

Pending

36

12

1

2011

04/23/14

Economic Modelling

Pending

23

12

1

submitted 4 years ago, got a response after nearly 2, resubmitted, now waiting more than a year for a result, editor not responsive to queries about the status, look elsewhere before soubmitting in the Economic Modelling, terrible experience, I am thinking about withdrawing

2011

10/09/15

Economic Modelling

Pending

24

N/A

0

short straightforward paper, should take max 2 hours to read carefully,still under review, editor (Hall) non-responsive

2012

06/02/14

Economic Modelling

Pending

36

N/A

0

Withdrew article from consideration after 18 months of wait.

2013

02/09/15

Economic Modelling

Pending

0

N/A

0

waiting 30 months for response, editor not responding to inquiries

2012

08/08/14

Economic Modelling

Accepted

2

1

2

Fast and fair. Good experience.

2017

06/28/17

Economic Modelling

Accepted

6

1

1

Difficulties to reach the editor, but useful report and very fast decision (1 day) after submitted the revised manuscript.

2013

10/31/14

Economic Modelling

Accepted

9

4

2

Hall is an inefficent editor

2014

10/25/14

Economic Modelling

Accepted

1

1

2

Fast turn around with great referee reports that significantly improved the paper. Great experience.

2018

07/04/18

Economic Modelling

Accepted

3

2

2

2012

01/11/13

Economic Modelling

Accepted

8

6

4

4 rounds, 23 months!

2014

02/22/18

Economic Modelling

Accepted

2

3

2

Very quick process. Prof. Sushanta Mallick handles the paper. Two referee reports, one good and constructive and the other so-so. Overall, great experience.

2016

03/28/17

Economic Modelling

Accepted

4

1

2

2011

01/11/13

Economic Modelling

Accepted

2

2

3

Extremely fast. Great experience.

2015

01/18/17

Economic Modelling

Accepted

3

1

3

2012

01/04/13

Economic Modelling

Accepted

3

1

4

2012

12/20/12

Economic Modelling

Accepted

3

3

2

The process was fair, with good pace. Probably I was a bit lucky the 2 referees liked the idea of teh paper sicne ti was a bit sort and basically asked me to do some mreo stuff. However, the editor (Mallick) kindly suggested to add papers from this journal ("As there is not citation from this journal when the journal has published several papers on this topic"). That is not cool. I dont care whether you want to increase citations and impact factor fo your journal. You have to earn it!

2017

12/21/17

Economic Modelling

Accepted

5

3

1

Everything fair.

2012

04/20/13

Economic Modelling

Ref Reject

13

N/A

1

Special issue editor started to referee himself. Comments didn't make sense. Editor did not intervene and kept hiding throughout. Shameless people.

2012

02/26/14

Economic Modelling

Ref Reject

13

N/A

2

Held my paper for a full year and rejected it on a split decision with one ref suggesting an RR and the other a reject. Paper has since been published.

2010

08/02/13

Economic Modelling

Ref Reject

4

4

1

After 3 rounds of revisions, it was rejected. After doing what the, very stupid, referee asked he said "not a big enough contribution".

2017

05/04/18

Economic Modelling

Ref Reject

9

N/A

1

After waiting for 9 months, I sent an email to the editor asking about the paper status. Got a rejection within a couple of days without any constructive comment.

2013

04/14/15

Economic Modelling

Ref Reject

10

3

2

After 10 months waiting, I had a revise and resubmit decision. The referee report was very positive, requiring only one major change that was successfully done. After resubmission, I was informed that the paper would be sent to another editor (Prof. Mallick). After another three months, the paper was reject on the basis of a presumed 2nd referee report, only with a few lines, that says the paper is "well structured, well written, and deploys sound econometric methodology", but "does not add value to the existing literature". It seems to me that this was an easy way for the new Editor to reject the paper!

2013

03/20/15

Economic Modelling

Ref Reject

6

6

1

I had a paper that was to be revised and the review was very positive. This was after a 6 month wait and emails to the editor to follow up. Revised carefully and resent, then they sent to another editor and another reviewer whose report contradicted the first and was very vague. The second editor rejected it. Process lasted one year with nontransparent, contradictory review process.

2014

02/07/15

Economic Modelling

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Editor efficient, but strange experience: Two referees were very favorable, but the third referee rejected by quoting a "flaw" which was in fact correct. The policy of the journal is to let each author appoint the referees, which improves speed on one hand but generates citation groups on the other hand. In a word, this is not a serious journal.

2012

04/23/13

Economic Modelling

Ref Reject

1

1

3

There is no option to choose 'Referees Accepted' but 'Editor Rejected'. After one round of revision, two of the three reviewers accepted the paper and one requested at best minor revision. The editor (Sushanta Mallick) rejected it by 'just by looking at the descriptive statistics' (the original words from the decision letter).

2018

09/02/18

Economic Modelling

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Referee wrote a short report with easily implementable suggestions, suggesting revision. Editor had a "confidential" report that he wouldn't share, and on the basis of that chose rejection.

2015

03/18/16

Economic Record

Accepted

4

3

2

One medium and one tough referee!

2015

03/28/16

Economic Record

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

One thorough, one brief referee report

2017

10/22/17

Economic Record

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2014

08/17/15

Economic Systems

Accepted

3

3

2

Very good experience. Quick and professional handling by the editor. Two very useful referee reports.

2011

12/13/13

Economic Systems

Accepted

4

4

2

Ali Kutan is the associate editor, finally accepted the paper. Sometime he asks for favours from authors such as finding sponsors for special issues for other journals such as Emerging Markets Finance and Trade or ask authors to organise conferences and use the proceeding to cover the cost of the special issues. Yes, he can ask for odd things. In anyway, you need to be very careful when responding with him, he can easily upset you with a rejection

2015

11/14/16

Economic Systems

Accepted

3

2

2

Referee report transformed the paper significantly. Very good experience.

2015

06/18/16

Economic Systems

Accepted

5

1

1

Great experience. Comments were sharp and precise and resulted in a much better paper. After revision, paper accepted in a week. Would definitely submit here again.

2015

02/22/16

Economic Systems

Ref Reject

4

4

2

The associate Editor Ali Kutan has rejected the paper. According to him one referee is in favor but the other is not. I must say second reviewer report was 1 and a half line and in my view it is the most unscientific report I have ever seen. In addition, Ali Kutan asked me for many favors between the revise and the rejection. When he rejected the paper for the Economic Systems, he then asked me to submit the same paper to his journal "Emerging Markets Finance and Trade." Extremely bad experience with this journal

2015

12/19/16

Economic Theory

Pending

0

N/A

0

Editors keep delaying despite returned reports, seems to be a pattern with this journal.

Very helpful referee report. It took a lot of work but response to my R&R was positive. Editor was a little bit lazy as it took him two months after receiving the ref report to answer. Overall, a very fair process.

2016

02/21/17

Economic Theory

Accepted

5

4

2

2013

11/03/14

Economic Theory

Accepted

11

4

2

2016

01/15/18

Economic Theory

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Useless referee report and incompetent editor wasted whole three months of waiting. Look elsewhere if you want to have a decent submission experience!

2016

06/09/16

Economic Theory

Ref Reject

6

6

1

It took six months for a single referee report (of exactly one paragraph of comments). Referee clearly did not read paper closely because the bulk of his (limited) comments focused on why I don't address an issue that is addressed prominently in the introduction.

2014

06/10/14

Economic Theory

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

Very unprofessional. Referee's only objection is flat out incorrect (i discussed report with colleagues in my field). No comments from the unknown handling editor. Seems as though they did not like the content and were looking for an excuse to reject.

2015

06/26/15

Economic Theory

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

Very unprofessional. Referee

2015

06/26/15

Economic Theory

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

2010

01/10/13

Economic Theory

Ref Reject

14

N/A

1

Good report, positive rec. from AE, but editor rejected without explanation.

2011

11/06/13

Economic Theory

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Three reports, one good report the other two average. Overall, fair process.

2015

06/24/15

Economic Theory

Ref Reject

11

N/A

3

the referee reports are of good quality, but I think 11 month for a first response is too long

2016

09/26/17

Economic Theory

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

One report useless, read only the first quarter of the paper. One very good report. Editor delayed a lot. Not recommended.

2018

10/22/18

Economic Theory

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Very quick response. Serious referee report, but without any helpful particular suggestion

2013

05/17/13

Economic Theory

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2011

08/02/13

Economic Theory

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2014 (the option is missing)

2013

01/20/14

Economic Theory

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

07/30/13

Economic Theory

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

The editor suggest that the paper is not good enough for ET! Suggested to send to another journal! oh they're good!

2014

09/25/14

Economic Theory

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2011

08/02/13

Economic Theory

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

04/04/13

Economica

Pending

36

N/A

0

Desk did not want to communicate at all.

2010

04/29/15

Economica

Pending

6

N/A

2

2014

08/22/14

Economica

Accepted

7

2

2

2011

12/20/12

Economica

Accepted

6

8

2

2014

02/13/16

Economica

Ref Reject

13

N/A

0

Waited 13 months to two mildly positive reports. But editor rejects.

2014

02/11/16

Economica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Just one report. Some ok comments.

2018

07/17/18

Economica

Ref Reject

9

N/A

3

Two of three referees did not read the paper. Many thanks, however, to the third referee for instructive comments. No further comment from the editor.

2011

02/11/15

Economica

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Reports are thoughtful and useful for revisions

2014

07/26/14

Economica

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Rejected with one report!

2016

06/05/16

Economica

Ref Reject

11

N/A

2

11 months for a rejection. My worst experience ever. Two referee reports, each was half a page with very general comments about the lack of contribution to a general readership. Editor was US-based and said that she likes the idea though!

2014

10/10/15

Economica

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

2010

01/07/13

Economica

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected within 10 days. No letter from the editor. But I understand it may not have been a good fit.

2017

11/06/17

Economica

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

ridiculous

2013

06/14/13

Economica

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Two days to desk reject, no comments, just boilerplate. I read on EJMR how clubby and unfortunately British this journal is, but never expected it to be true. Yep, it is.

2018

09/10/18

Economica

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Poorly managed. Theory in one field sent to AE in another field doing empirics.

2013

02/20/13

Economica

Desk Reject

6

N/A

0

SIX MONTHS for a desk reject. Do not submit to this journal.

2014

08/15/14

Economica

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Economica

Desk Reject

4

N/A

0

Awful experience. Four months for a desk reject!

2018

07/16/18

Economica

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Garbage journal, not a real journal, avoid.

2016

09/20/17

Economica

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejection with no comments in 3 weeks.

2015

02/11/16

Economics and Human Biology

Pending

1

1

2

Joerg Baten seems to be literally an idiot making me wonder how he got picked. He sends you an email that he carefully read the paper and then you follow up a day after asking him about a clarification and his response was that he did not remember. If this journal wants to publish high quality papers, it needs to pick someone better than Joerg Baten who actually reads the papers before he accepts/rejects, etc. Reflects really poorly on the journal to keep this guy.

2016

09/10/17

Economics and Human Biology

Accepted

4

2

2

Quick and professionsl process. Reasonable comments from referees.

2016

08/21/17

Economics and Human Biology

Accepted

3

3

2

major revision, then minor (decision in a matter of days). Overall good experience. Time to accept less than 1 year.

2016

08/23/17

Economics and Human Biology

Accepted

1

2

2

Very good experience.

2016

07/12/17

Economics and Human Biology

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

The editor (George Weebly) made inconsistent statements that did not match with the statments in the paper or from the refrees.The referees made good comments.

Spent a week rewriting the paper according to requests of the editor ("put figures in the end of the paper" and such), then got a desk reject.

2013

11/27/13

Economics and Human Biology

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

03/28/13

Economics and Philosophy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject after 14 days, form letter.

2016

07/16/16

Economics and Philosophy

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2013

05/13/13

Economics and Politics

Pending

0

N/A

0

Submitted July 2012, short empirical paper, still waiting for first response.

2012

04/21/13

Economics and Politics

Accepted

3

4

2

Very useful reports, also doing some editing

2010

01/04/13

Economics and Politics

Accepted

7

3

1

Very useful report

2013

09/17/14

Economics and Politics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Referees ask for the revised paper; editor rejects the paper

2012

02/20/13

Economics and Politics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

Referee had positive comments and suggested revise and resubmit, but editor rejected it.

2014

12/06/14

Economics and Politics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Disappointing referee: a few useful comments, but mostly low-grade and somewhat hostile

2011

02/21/13

Economics Bulletin

Pending

4

N/A

2

Invited to revise and resubmit the paper. Two referees made great reviews and very detailed comments. Good experience.

2018

05/29/18

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

1

1

1

Very fast good report

2013

10/18/13

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

1

1

2

Very fast and easy, but useless reports and editors (which is what I wanted for a quick worthless pub)

2012

11/06/13

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

2

2

2

Editor picked reasonable comments, asked to take into account suggestions, accepted the paper after the referees agreed that what I did is reasonable.

2015

11/16/15

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

2

N/A

1

2017

01/08/18

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

1

1

1

Very fast process. Poor report but good comments from the associate editor

2011

05/01/14

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

0

N/A

1

Conley is a good, fair editor.

2016

07/25/17

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

3

1

1

the website was hacked...the report was good, and the associate editor is very nice

2014

04/22/15

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

2

1

1

Reasonable comments from the referee, extremely fast and efficient process.

2017

08/04/18

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

4

2

2

The editor was very helpful.

2014

04/28/15

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

3

1

2

Associate Editor and the reviewer provided excellent feedback

2016

08/18/17

Economics Bulletin

Accepted

0

N/A

0

Editor accepted the article within one week.

2014

04/30/14

Economics Bulletin

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Referee does not understand the purpose of the paper, clearly not a specialist of the field ; published elsewhere

2012

10/31/14

Economics Bulletin

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

2016

02/03/18

Economics Bulletin

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

One referee report with no constructive comments. Waste of time

2010

12/05/13

Economics Bulletin

Desk Reject

4

N/A

0

4 months for a letter w/o referee report. Bigger joke than the article I sent them. -> Toilet.

2017

03/31/18

Economics Letters

Pending

1

2

1

Easy Process. Very Fast. 1 Month from Submission to a very positive R&R

2015

04/17/15

Economics Letters

Pending

0

N/A

0

12 months and waiting. No report yet. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know...

2015

03/29/16

Economics Letters

Pending

0

N/A

0

12 months and waiting. No report yet. Multiple inquiries with a response: "once the reviews are completed, the editor will make a decision". I am tempted to say: thank you for telling me what I already know...

2015

03/29/16

Economics Letters

Pending

4

N/A

1

2015

09/09/15

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

N/A

1

Very pleasant experience – very quick and the report professional

2015

03/26/16

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

N/A

1

Very quick and efficient.

2014

11/18/14

Economics Letters

Accepted

4

1

1

Very useful report

2015

10/30/15

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

1

1

Good process

2014

01/09/15

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

1

1

2014

07/29/14

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

1

1

Excellent experience.

2016

09/06/16

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

1 month for R&R, 1 week for acceptance after revision submitted. Great experience.

2013

09/19/15

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

N/A

1

2013

08/09/13

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

1

1

First round took 2 months. Accepted two weeks after r&r. Pretty good experience.

2017

11/15/17

Economics Letters

Accepted

4

1

1

2015

11/21/15

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

2

0

2012

07/27/14

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

1

1

2014

07/29/14

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

Pretty quick. Serrano handled it.

2011

04/12/13

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

1

1

Good experience. With my 4-6 data observations (different journals), EL is definitely the most efficient journal

2018

08/28/18

Economics Letters

Accepted

4

N/A

1

2007

12/20/12

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

N/A

1

Less than two months for very minor revision request. Resubmitted in 2 days, accepted after resubmission in 10 days.

2016

01/27/17

Economics Letters

Accepted

36

N/A

0

2008

12/20/12

Economics Letters

Accepted

0

N/A

1

Super fast handling by Pro. J.E. Harrington and the anonymous reviewer. 7 days from first submission to minor revision. Resubmitted within the same day. Got accepted in three days. 10 days in total!!!

The editor was good. Revision accepted after one day. Reviewers seem to be very well acquainted with my research area (health).

2015

08/30/15

Economics Letters

Accepted

4

1

2

2011

01/13/13

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

2012

09/30/14

Economics Letters

Accepted

3

1

0

Fasstest acceptation ever after R&R: 1 day!

2012

01/15/13

Economics Letters

Accepted

3

1

1

Fast response. Good report as well.

2012

02/15/13

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

2

1

2015

12/06/15

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

1

1

Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. We were asked to collect additional data for our existing experimental treatments to increase our statistical power. We did. Our results didn't change. Serrano accepted the paper a couple of days after resubmission. Very pleasant experience!

2013

11/28/13

Economics Letters

Accepted

3

1

1

2012

12/21/12

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

Very fast and the submission fee is relatively cheap and even cheaper for grad students. One of the best outlet for phd students

The editor was good. Revision accepted after one day. Reviewers seem to be very well acquainted with my research area (health).

2015

08/30/15

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

Excellent

2016

12/07/16

Economics Letters

Accepted

21

N/A

1

2008

12/20/12

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

Super fast review. Referee was perceptive and pointed out serious flaws in the first draft. Accepted version was greatly improved. Whole process super quick. Great outcome.

2018

10/01/18

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

1

1

Serrano seems to be a good/efficient editor. We were asked to run additional experimental treatments to support our claims. We did. Our claims were supported. Serrano accepted the paper a week after resubmission without going back to the reviewers. Very quick process!

2013

11/28/13

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

Seems the process is very efficient with the new editorial board

2013

04/20/13

Economics Letters

Accepted

8

N/A

1

2008

12/20/12

Economics Letters

Accepted

8

1

1

2010

02/13/13

Economics Letters

Accepted

2

1

1

Good experience. Quick first response with major r&r. Two days between handing in the revision and acceptance.

2012

01/22/14

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

2012

01/18/13

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

Less than 3 weeks for the first responses (major R&R) then accepted in less than a week.

2016

12/31/16

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

1

1

Costas Meghir was editor. Waited about a month for the first decision, just a few days for the (very minor) revisions. Good experience.

2016

01/24/17

Economics Letters

Accepted

1

N/A

1

Return in 5 weeks with a two-paragraph short response

2014

03/15/14

Economics Letters

Accepted

3

1

1

2012

12/21/12

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

2014

05/22/14

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

2015

08/19/15

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

2

1

At least response in 1.5 month. Report is in reasonable quality.

2014

08/22/14

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

1

1

1

Less than two weeks from submission to editorial decision. The referee report was very poor. Very short and no relevant comments.

2017

06/21/18

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

2006

12/20/12

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

One useless referee report claiming that we did not make robustness checks in a journal of 2000 letters! However we had make all of the referee's suggestions and the outcome was not positive. The editor was not helpful at all

2016

09/22/16

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

2012

07/28/13

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Really quick response and decent referee report. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. The paper got rejected anyways.

2015

04/03/15

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

1

N/A

0

Liked the paper, had no qualms with methodology, just felt it wasn't broad enough.

2014

01/16/15

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Useless referee report.

2016

09/11/16

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

"Referee report"... Biggest joke on Earth!!

2015

09/18/15

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Really quick response and decent referee report. The report seemed to be more appropriate for a revise and resubmit. The paper got rejected anyways.

2015

04/03/15

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Referee report useless. Editor not helpful at all.

2014

12/02/14

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Quick. Very low quality report.

2015

11/20/15

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

Process was a complete disgrace. Editor claims that paper was sent to two referees. But no referee reports were supplied to me. No reason given for rejection, and no indication that the paper was actually read by anyone. Submission fee not refunded. Absolutely pathetic.

2013

05/31/13

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

3

1

2013

09/17/14

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Fast process, but very poor reviewer report.

2017

02/22/18

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

2012

12/20/12

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

0

N/A

1

Fast response, referee did not understand aim of the article, suggested more details on the method, imposible in their space limit.

2013

12/05/13

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Constructive referee report; said needed more robustness checks, but difficult in word limit.

2016

09/15/16

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Lazy report. The first note of the referee claimed that I didn't do something I clearly did. The second one gave it away that he didn't even try to understand what I wrote.

2017

09/27/17

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

I do not think that the referee understood my paper. Seemed not to like the idea of the paper without actually reading it. A disappointment.

2017

08/31/17

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

16

N/A

1

Terrible single line report from editor (after 16 months of waiting). Pretty sure the editor didn't even read the paper. Would be happy with desk reject, but not with waiting 16 months to read a 5 page article.

2010

10/25/14

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

Editor rejected the paper based on the decision of board of editor. Paper was never sent to the reviewers as per the email.

2013

10/03/15

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website.

2013

07/08/14

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

A long wait but not very helpful comments.

2016

06/26/16

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

I want my money back ! Fast and uninformative. But at least fast.

2014

02/28/14

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

2012

12/20/12

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

0

N/A

1

Efficient and fair. One stern but very helpful referee report (five pages, competent and extremely detailed) in two weeks. Almost happy.

The paper was not sent to the referee but instead the editor said it was reviewed by the editorial board. Seems this was not consistent with what is written in website.

2013

07/08/14

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

At least a quick report with one good comment that can help to improve the paper, but with the other points highlighted by the referee were discussed in the paper

2018

04/26/18

Economics Letters

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

Editorial board review and then rejection. They should just ask me $60.

2014

12/05/14

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

The contribution of the paper is not enough for EL!

2014

11/25/14

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rejected in 4 days, editor said work was done net resting but not broad enough.

2016

06/02/16

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

2 days from submission to rejection, and interesting comments and suggestions from the editor.

2018

10/15/18

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

5

N/A

0

Couple of comments why the paper does not fit (relatively reasonable). Fairly long wait though.

2014

02/13/15

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected within two weeks. A bit slow for a 2000 words paper

2017

08/11/17

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected by Sarte in 3 days without comments. Too narrow-minded editor.

2018

09/21/18

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2013

12/20/12

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Baltagi rejected in 4 days, no comments

2012

12/21/12

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejection after 8 days. According to the editor, the paper has some merit, but is too specialized for EL. He recommended me to send it to a more specialized field journal. At least they are quick!

2015

08/04/15

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Not acceptable because other paper is too close (which was not even on the same topic!)

2015

03/15/16

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2 weeks (Comment by the editor constructive and helpful)

2015

12/01/15

Economics Letters

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Pierre Daniel Sarte rejected it with nothing specific. there is no 2016 in the dropdown list

Two useful reports. One of them was very detailed. Another one was sharp. R&R only one round; after submitting the revised version, only waited for six days until final acceptance.

2017

03/15/18

Economics of Education Review

Accepted

1

1

1

Relatively Quick Process. One good quality report suggesting minor revisions after 1 month. After submitting revisions, 1 month until final decision to accept with no other edits.

2015

06/24/15

Economics of Education Review

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

1 report, minor issues, rejected. not a fair process

2013

12/21/13

Economics of Education Review

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

Only one report, no useful comments

2012

04/29/13

Economics of Education Review

Ref Reject

3

3

1

The reviewer and the editor did not understand the paper. It ended up being published in a higher ranked journal. Will probably not be using this journal again.

2014

05/28/15

Economics of Education Review

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

good comments, a nice experience even though the outcome was a rejection.

2013

12/13/13

Economics of Education Review

Ref Reject

4

1

2

First R&R was fair, 2 good ref. reports. Resubmission was a joke, Only one report, completely unfair. Recommended rejection.

2013

12/10/14

Economics of Education Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Not fair.

2016

09/07/16

Economics of Education Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Economics of Governance

Accepted

8

3

2

2016

09/02/17

Economics of Governance

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Long wait, decision was communicated with a delay of 3 months after reports had been received. One very positive and helpful report, one negative report. Editor decided to reject the paper without any additional comments how he reached the decision.

2013

08/01/14

Economics of Transition

Pending

5

N/A

1

2013

08/22/13

Economics of Transition

Accepted

4

4

2

2013

06/18/14

Economics of Transition

Accepted

3

1

2

Excellent review process.

2016

10/31/16

Economics of Transition

Accepted

9

4

2

The editor is very good with excellent referee reports. Slow but good experience overall.

2017

08/21/18

Economics of Transition

Accepted

2

1

1

Excellent referee report.

2017

02/07/18

Economics of Transition

Accepted

5

3

2

2012

09/15/14

Economics of Transition

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

2015

04/20/16

Economics of Transition

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2014

12/07/14

Education Economics

Pending

3

N/A

0

2012

02/11/18

Education Economics

Accepted

1

1

2

2011

02/13/13

Education Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Quite superficial referee reports.

2013

09/24/13

Education Economics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Very slow. Referee reports were very brief and contained little in the way of substantive comments.

2013

02/14/14

Emerging Markets Finance and Trade

Accepted

4

3

3

Very professional...the referee reports were fine but rather tough given the quality of the journal

2011

12/13/13

Emerging Markets Finance and Trade

Accepted

3

3

2

Great Experience

2012

03/08/14

Emerging Markets Finance and Trade

Accepted

3

3

3

Very detailed and helpful reports.

2015

11/03/16

Emerging Markets Finance and Trade

Accepted

2

1

2

Unbelievably fast process, tough-but-fair referee notes that improved the paper. Good experience and good editorial team.

2015

04/16/16

Emerging Markets Finance and Trade

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Two very good referee reports. Much better than overal reputation of journal

2015

02/05/16

Emerging Markets Finance and Trade

Ref Reject

1

N/A

0

Think one more time before sending here. Bad referee reports. 150$ is quite a lot of money.

2016

07/09/16

Emerging Markets Review

Accepted

3

2

2

Nice editor

2014

10/25/14

Emerging Markets Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Editor didnt seem to pay attention to the content. Maybe small sample made it untouchable?

2016

04/24/17

Emerging Markets Review

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2014

01/22/15

Emerging Markets Review

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

2017

07/07/17

Empirica

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

Do not send your papers to this journal. It took them 10 months to say anything and at the end even though the referees asked for revisions and were positive the editor rejected the paper. It is definitely not worth the long wait!

long waiting time. one ok, one very short and superficial referee report. the editor was helpful and nice though.

2011

02/18/13

Empirical Economics

Accepted

16

1

2

Very slow process but happy to get accepted.

2016

09/25/18

Empirical Economics

Accepted

4

3

2

Good experience. 1 good Referee and good Editor. Recommend.

2015

10/21/16

Empirical Economics

Accepted

6

3

2

Good reports.

2011

07/30/13

Empirical Economics

Accepted

6

5

2

Two good referee reports though the review process is A bit slow.

2016

09/13/17

Empirical Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

Process ended after 1 report. Comments dubious at best. Editor claimed an expert in the field reviewed the paper while the referee admitted in his first sentence of the report that he is not.

2016

04/25/17

Empirical Economics

Ref Reject

5

6

2

Initial response for R&R was quite fast, but the second response after the resubmission took quite a long time, and it seems that the paper was just sitting at the editor's desk for more than a month before they were assigned back to the referees. After both referees mentioned that there was an improvement in the revision, the editor rejected the paper without giving justifiable reason.

2015

01/07/16

Empirical Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

The referee report was mildly constructive, being generally positive. But the editor (Kunst) decided to "follow the referee's advice to reject your submission", even though there was no indication of such a recommendation in the RR. Actually, it was overall positive. Waste of time.

2015

03/22/16

Empirical Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Good reports.

2016

06/06/16

Empirical Economics

Ref Reject

3

1

2

After revision was done the AE decided to reject without sending to referees! Waste of time.

2015

05/03/16

Empirical Economics

Ref Reject

12

N/A

2

Unacceptable waiting time. One absolutely incompetent referee. Second referee made some useful suggestions.

2017

01/27/18

Empirical Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2013

04/12/13

Empirical Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

3 weeks to desk reject paper because it didn't fit the journal.

2012

02/01/13

Empirical Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in 3 weeks.

2013

08/13/13

Energy Economics

Pending

0

N/A

0

Almost one year later from submission, have no answer about my paper. The status are always the same "under review". Also sent some emails to the editors but have no replies.

2015

03/17/16

Energy Economics

Accepted

8

6

1

2011

03/25/13

Energy Economics

Accepted

4

3

2

good reports. fair process.

2013

06/13/14

Energy Economics

Accepted

8

2

2

2013

12/27/14

Energy Economics

Accepted

2

2

2

Although other comments on this journal say that the review process is long, I had very different experience. I got two rounds of R&R. At every round, it took them only 2 months to respond back.

2015

03/18/16

Energy Economics

Accepted

6

2

2

Very efficient process. One good report and the other mediocre. The editor Richard Toll very fast and efficient. I will submit again to this rising journal

2015

10/06/16

Energy Economics

Accepted

4

3

2

high level and very helpful referee reports

2015

04/01/18

Energy Economics

Ref Reject

4

2

3

Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Overall, the decision was not fair.

2013

09/02/14

Energy Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

Essentially a desk reject after six months saying the paper was not related enough to energy issues, no other substantive comment. 3 sentences total, six months.

2015

04/08/16

Energy Economics

Ref Reject

4

2

3

Got rejected by the handling and the chief editor after two rounds of revise and resubmit. 2 referees were positive throughout the process, one was an outright acceptance. Overall, the decision was not fair.

The editor Adonis Yatchew was very helpfull and efficient. Our paper went through four rounds and finally accepted after one year of its submission.

2015

10/05/16

Energy Journal

Accepted

4

4

4

Very tedious review process

2010

01/09/13

Energy Journal

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

All the referees understood what I did in great detail. They were polite in point out a crucial mistake at the beginning of the paper were a new theoretical model was presented. Two of them suggested a possible solution. In all the rejection was fair. I'll definetly will submit again.

2016

12/27/16

Energy Journal

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2013

08/09/13

Energy Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Very good experience. The referees gave great feedback to improve the paper

2015

06/21/15

Energy Journal

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Good comments from 2 referees, the other did not appear to have read the paper well. improved paper based on comments.

2014

06/30/15

Energy Journal

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Very poor referee reports. Extremely outdated econometric "suggestions" and an overall lack of understanding. One referee clearly did not read the paper, while the other one did not understand the meaning of control variables. At least it was fast...

2016

10/17/16

Energy Policy

Pending

10

6

2

2010

01/11/13

Energy Policy

Pending

5

N/A

0

6 months and no feedback from the journal whtsoever. Will not consider it again.

2016

12/02/16

Energy Policy

Accepted

8

5

2

Two reports: one good, one bad

2015

08/08/16

Energy Policy

Accepted

1

1

2

Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Which editor handles the paper mattered. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons.

2014

09/02/14

Energy Policy

Accepted

1

1

2

Got accepted with minor revisions after two wonderful set of comments from the referees. Which editor handles the paper mattered. One of the editors used to reject the paper for no reasons.

2014

09/02/14

Energy Policy

Ref Reject

6

2

2

Totally automated review process; one referee carps even with demonstrably invalid reason and you have no right even to contact the editor. Would not bother again.

2013

10/10/14

Energy Policy

Ref Reject

8

3

2

2012

09/13/13

Energy Policy

Desk Reject

2

2

0

Waited 2 months for the paper to be assigned to an editor. Paper got desk rejected shortly after.

2015

03/07/16

Environment and Development Economics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

Awful experience. Very inefficient handling of the work.

2015

09/01/15

Environment, Development, and Sustainability

Accepted

3

1

2

Revision accepted for publication in one week.

2014

11/04/14

Environmental and Resource Economics

Pending

6

N/A

2

6 months to receive half-assed & useless referee reports and request for major revisions. I declined the offer to resubmit.

2015

05/05/16

Environmental and Resource Economics

Accepted

6

1

2

2011

12/20/12

Environmental and Resource Economics

Accepted

4

5

2

2007

01/09/13

Environmental and Resource Economics

Accepted

4

3

1

2 rounds (1 major R and 1 minor R), one report each time, very fast acceptance after minor R round (less than a month)

2012

10/01/13

Environmental and Resource Economics

Accepted

7

2

3

I've been rejected and accepted by this journal a few times already. Every time I'm impressed by how precise the reviews and suggestions are. A drawback is that it takes time.

2016

09/26/17

Environmental and Resource Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

One Referee wrote nonsense, the other was good, the editor added nonsense.

2011

02/15/13

Environmental and Resource Economics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Useful comments from the editor who had to stand in for the unresponsive second referee. Would submit again.

2014

06/08/15

Environmental and Resource Economics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

2011

12/20/12

Environmental and Resource Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Very fast desk reject;

2013

11/25/13

Environmental and Resource Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2013

08/09/13

Environmental and Resource Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

6 weeks for a desk reject. It seems from this website that this in not uncommon for this journal. Boo!

2015

05/05/16

Environmental and Resource Economics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

3 months for a summary reject by the editor. Slow as hell.

2015

05/05/16

Environmental and Resource Economics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

Three months for an "out of scope" decision. Three months.

2015

05/04/16

Environmental and Resource Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

6 weeks to desk reject.

2014

07/29/15

European Economic Review

Accepted

2

N/A

3

Decent experience; overall fast, fair and constructive. One highly vauable report; one okay-ish, one less useful.

2018

11/19/18

European Economic Review

Accepted

1

2

2

Tough, but fair referees. Good comments, helped improve the paper

2013

11/28/13

European Economic Review

Accepted

3

1

3

Great experience, 2/3 quite tough referees and a fair editor. The journal is likely to go up again.

2018

11/17/18

European Economic Review

Accepted

2

1

3

Quick handling, competent (positive) reports

2013

11/28/13

European Economic Review

Accepted

3

3

2

Tough and fair refereeing. Very professional editors

2017

12/07/17

European Economic Review

Accepted

3

2

2

Very helpful referee reports. Professional editor.

2013

11/20/14

European Economic Review

Accepted

4

2

2

very good.

2012

10/04/15

European Economic Review

Accepted

3

2

2

3 months to R&R; 2 weeks for second round; 1 week for final acceptance

2012

03/13/13

European Economic Review

Accepted

3

2

2

2011

02/06/13

European Economic Review

Accepted

3

3

2

One very useful report from a critical referee, and one mediocre. Tough referee was going through three rounds but eventually accepted. Pretty smooth process, with Eric Leeper being very kind and helpful.

2014

02/02/15

European Economic Review

Accepted

3

3

2

Really lucky experience.

2014

02/04/15

European Economic Review

Accepted

3

3

2

2 informed reports + very detailed comments and guidance by the AE. E

2015

03/01/17

European Economic Review

Accepted

3

3

3

Very tough but very useful report! Very good experience!

2014

01/29/15

European Economic Review

Accepted

1

4

1

very efficient. great experience. the journal is recovering.

2017

01/12/18

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

One of the referee reports was sloppy, showing inaccurate reading

2011

07/30/13

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Waste of time and money. Editor sat on completed reports for 2 months to give a two sentence rejection response.

2017

09/20/17

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

4

four reports. 2.5 are very positive. AE decided to reject! Comments are mostly useful but the AE's decision is just too tilted to a negative decision, which is SURPRISING.

2015

11/09/15

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

2012

02/04/13

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Quick response, two spiteful ref reports

2015

06/29/15

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Expensive. Two OK referee reports.

2016

12/09/16

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

One good report, one very bad full of misunderstandings.

2017

01/10/18

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Five weeks, submission to rejection. Of course we don't like the reports, or editor's comments, but there is some helpful stuff.

2017

08/07/17

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

fast and reliable journal. very good comments

2016

08/31/17

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2012

02/18/13

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

fast response but low quality referee reports

2017

10/01/17

European Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2012

01/11/13

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject within 1 day. Handled by an editor who is not in the same field.

2017

06/18/17

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in less than a week. No evidence anyone read the paper, even though they probably have the highest submission fee among econ journals.

2017

11/19/17

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Got the AE who served as the anonymous referee from anther journal. Didn't even quite read the rewritten paper. Copied and pasted the comments, some of which were not even relevant for the current version of the the paper. Avoid this journal.

2016

12/19/16

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Manuscript number assigned at 10AM, rejected by 7PM. No refund. 12.5 euro (exclusive of VAT) for each hour it sat with them. Pretty terrible experience.

2016

01/05/17

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Very bad experience. They desk rejected a paper that had been previously accepted for review at much better journals.

2011

01/10/13

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

"Although interesting and competently executed, your study does not contain a sufficient theoretical or empirical innovation that would meet the very high standards of the EER." Reasonable response. Appreciate quick reject.

2016

12/12/16

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

rejected in two days...

2017

11/15/17

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

Desk rejected in 8 days. My paper had some flaws which I already fixed. Sent my paper to another different journal.

2014

10/29/14

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

desk rejection within 1 week. had another paper desk rejected by the same editor two years ago, text motivating the rejection was exactly the same (copy + paste) plus an additional 2 sentences explaining why the editor dislikes the approach chosen in the paper

2014

11/10/14

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick desk reject with some comments.

2012

03/13/13

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2 weeks to generic desk reject with no comments whatsoever. Nothing that indicated they read the paper or even seriously considered it. Unfortunately, this is my usual experience with EER.

2018

07/17/18

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Very negative experience. Desk reject (which is good, if they're going to reject) with no explanation (which is really bad). And I've recently reviewed a closely related paper for the EER that got a revise-and-resubmit, so you'd think the topic must be interesting enough.

2018

04/12/18

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rejected on grounds of the paper not "establishing a new set of empirical facts that theory must confront" (Eric Leeper). Waste of submission fee. Will avoid in the future.

2014

10/09/14

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

The paper would be a good fit. EER to toilet, the editors are clueless.

2016

08/13/16

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejection after hefty submission fee. Editors only pick those with close network. Avoid at all cost.

2014

08/09/14

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Rejected on pretty poor grounds by an associate editor. Maybe paper is not good enough, but the "report" was not convincing either. At least it was fast.

2014

02/02/15

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject after 2 days (contribution too small)

2017

08/25/17

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2015

11/04/15

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

In case of desk rejection, they should return the submission fee.

2014

09/08/14

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2 days desk reject

2014

04/09/14

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in a few hours with very impersonal email. High submission fees. To avoid

2014

09/08/14

European Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

1 week for desk reject

2015

08/19/15

European Journal of Industrial Relations

Accepted

2

1

2

2012

01/07/13

European Journal of Law and Economics

Pending

0

N/A

0

2018

06/28/18

European Journal of Law and Economics

Accepted

2

1

2

Good experience. Valuable referee's reports. The new editors did a good job

2014

07/25/14

European Journal of Law and Economics

Accepted

3

3

3

Major revisions at the first round and then accepted. Reports very helpful. Very good experience

2015

01/19/16

European Journal of Law and Economics

Accepted

12

3

1

2011

04/25/13

European Journal of Law and Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Efficient despite the adverse outcome.

2014

09/22/14

European Journal of Law and Economics

Ref Reject

24

N/A

0

Just a joke, 2 years of "under review" for nothing

2012

05/22/14

European Journal of Law and Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Very detailed reports.

2017

02/19/18

European Journal of Operational Research

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2016

05/22/17

European Journal of Political Economy

Accepted

3

2

2

One reviewer gave very constructive suggestions. The other reviewer raised some minor issues. Overall very fast process. Editor was very reasonable. (It doesn't seem like a club journal. I am not in a club, whatever it is.)

2018

07/07/18

European Journal of Political Economy

Accepted

10

5

2

Club journal that accepts your paper if you have good ties to the editors. I had.

2012

10/24/13

European Journal of Political Economy

Accepted

3

1

1

2008

01/09/13

European Journal of Political Economy

Accepted

2

4

3

2010

01/09/13

European Journal of Political Economy

Accepted

3

6

2

One great referee, one ok. Super fast process. Took some time due to lots of things to revise, but all the requests were fair. The editor's comments were no less helpful and extensive as referees' reports. Overall good experience.

2016

06/02/17

European Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

2017

09/20/17

European Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

0

N/A

0

useless reports... referees didn't seem to read the paper and appeared not to be experts .....

2014

09/29/14

European Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Fast, but absolutely useless reports. Reviewers did not understand anything. Worst experience I have ever had. Will never submit there again.

2013

09/20/13

European Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Two referees, one useful and helpful, the other clearly not an expert in the field

2013

07/05/15

European Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Fast. Ref Reports: I'd say one okay, the other so-so.

2014

05/23/14

European Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Two and a half months for a desk reject for lack of fit.

2013

01/22/14

European Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk-rejected in 7 days: "the paper lacks sufficient political economy content to be appropriate"

2014

05/07/14

European Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk-rejected in 3 days

2009

01/04/13

European Review of Agricultural Economics

Accepted

4

6

3

2007

08/02/13

European Review of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

reports: 1 ridiculous, 1 useless, 1 useful

2015

06/08/15

European Review of Agricultural Economics

Ref Reject

3

6

3

Submitted in 2014. Three very constructive referee reports that help improving the quality of the paper. Three rounds. After two rounds all the referee agreed to publish the paper. The paper was under minor revisions. Unfortunately the editor decides to reject the paper on the last round because he has concern about the paper. Two years for such outcome. A complete waste of time and a scandalous process!!

2014

03/28/17

European Review of Agricultural Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2015

12/01/15

Experimental Economics

Accepted

3

2

2

6 months from initial submission to acceptance. Very helpful reports and overall a smooth process

2016

03/05/17

Experimental Economics

Accepted

1

1

2

Total 6 months. Extremely fast and helpful.

2018

08/12/18

Experimental Economics

Accepted

9

1

2

2011

12/21/12

Experimental Economics

Accepted

3

2

2

2017

08/13/18

Experimental Economics

Ref Reject

11

N/A

2

Extensive delay for referee reports apparently due to unresponsive referee

2013

01/26/15

Experimental Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Both reviewers were positive suggested R&R. Editor had different opinion. His motivation was overall reasonable, except I wonder why he contacted two expert reviewers before rejecting...

2016

09/01/16

Experimental Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

2011

12/20/12

Experimental Economics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

Decision based on 1 one-paragraph review that didn't refer to anything specific in the paper. After 7 months of waiting.

2012

07/24/13

Experimental Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2 weeks. Editor letter saying that what we do is not so new. That's not true. But I'm a nobody. The bar is high for Exp Econ.

2014

10/22/14

Explorations in Economic History

Accepted

3

2

3

very efficient process and useful reports from editor and referess. Really improved the paper

2016

10/07/16

Explorations in Economic History

Accepted

2

2

3

Great experience. Editor was engaged throughout the process, acting as a fourth referee. Three tough rounds which made the paper better. Only quibble is one referee got stuck on a (not applicable) approach and wouldn't let go. Editor should have told him to take a hike much earlier, especially when other refs suggested accept. Would submit here again.

One excellent referee, one who did not engage at all with their requested revisions, and a very efficient editor.

2013

05/19/14

Explorations in Economic History

Accepted

3

3

2

Very well-run journal. The editor is incredible.

2016

01/08/18

Explorations in Economic History

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Two good reports plus some comments from editor. very well-run journal

2015

06/23/15

Explorations in Economic History

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Well-run journal. It was a rejection but the editor (Abramitzky) read the paper and provided some additional comments that were helpful.

2017

01/08/18

Explorations in Economic History

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

very good and fair comments in a short time

2017

08/31/17

Explorations in Economic History

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

editor read the paper and rejected with some useful comments. fair decision

2012

04/27/13

Financial Analysts Journal

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

The referee reports were received by the ediotr roughly a month before a decision was made. There was supposed to be a third referee report that was not received, which may have been the reason for the time between submission to decision. I ended up presenting the paper at two conferences between the submission and the decision. Between two referee reports and two conference discussions, I have some things to consider for future submission.

2014

06/27/14

Financial History Review?(Cambridge)

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Fair reviews, the editor was helpful.

2014

06/05/15

Financial Management

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

very thorough with helpful suggestions for revision

2014

05/22/14

Financial Review

Ref Reject

2

2

2

Thorough referee reports with substantive comments. Fair.

2017

02/15/18

FinanzArchiv

Accepted

2

2

2

Contribution was an application of a specific method to an interesting case, referees made it a methodical paper by asking for a series of many different methods

2015

09/27/17

Fiscal Studies

Pending

6

N/A

1

As they claim to be able to give a first response within 8 weeks, I was a bit disappointed to recive it after 6 months. Referee report not particularly useful, but editor had good suggestions

2012

04/16/13

Fiscal Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

The automatic reply after submission states that they will let yo know when your paper gets assigned to a referee, but they don't. Other than that, the process was good. I got the referee reports after 2.5 months from submission. The reports were good and helpful.

One referee was thoughtful and recommended acceptance; Second referee asked for more results; AE agreed with the 1st referee.

2017

06/02/18

Games and Economic Behavior

Accepted

6

4

2

Fair reviews

2014

09/01/15

Games and Economic Behavior

Accepted

8

3

2

2011

10/02/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Accepted

6

4

2

2011

12/22/12

Games and Economic Behavior

Accepted

15

8

2

2009

12/22/12

Games and Economic Behavior

Accepted

2

2

1

a short manuscript (8 pages)

2013

11/03/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Accepted

5

5

2

2011

12/21/12

Games and Economic Behavior

Accepted

3

2

2

2010

01/29/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Accepted

5

4

2

One very good report, the other average-to-good.

2007

01/15/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Very helpful reports.

2015

06/09/15

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

horrible reports

2012

05/16/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

12

N/A

2

Worst experience so far. Editor forgot to send the paper and took five months to send it to the referees. and then took another seven months. SHAME on you.

2012

05/23/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

2009

01/09/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

2 reports = trash; 1 okay

2011

04/17/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Outrageously poor process. One referee was extremely favourable, the other's comments were needlessly rude and completely hostile. Second referee based their rejection on a mathematical claim that was completely wrong. The AE finally conceded that I was right and the referee was wrong - but decided to reject the paper anyway!

2012

05/31/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

12

N/A

0

Worst experience ever. Outcome was fair and reports well done, but waiting time was unacceptable and the editor's lettere extremely poor.

2012

04/02/14

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Good quality report

2012

01/11/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Received two detailed reports, which were reasonably useful.

2014

08/19/14

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

Helpful reports

2011

04/11/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Poor reports

2013

05/07/14

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

2012

01/02/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Long wait for two one-page reports!

2015

10/12/15

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

2010

01/02/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

One positive and one negative. The positive report points out more contributions than we claim. It also tries to give advice, but not really doable. The negative one is essentially saying "it's not game theory so I don't care." The editor agrees with the latter statement but adds "unless it's great."

2015

10/19/16

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

One very helpful referee report, 2 not so helpful

2012

04/13/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Reports ok-good

2013

10/23/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

2011

01/02/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2015

03/21/16

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

2013

12/17/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

One positive and one negative report. Editor makes no attempt to reconcile conflicting reports or

2013

10/07/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Very good referee reports.

2011

01/10/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

Very positive report, editor rejected

2013

10/12/14

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

One good referee report. The other without serious suggestions

2013

06/17/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

7

N/A

3

Seven months... at least the reports where good.

2014

04/30/15

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

After waiting for 6 months received one crap report which is absolute garbage! never submit to this journal again.

2015

01/28/16

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

bad reports, of the type "i don't like it"

2017

07/12/17

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Average Quality R-Reports, one missed one has good comments

2012

12/22/12

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

bad experience.

2015

10/20/16

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

cannot complaint about reports but could have been faster

2012

06/17/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

Bad experience: six months to get one report plus a decision letter that looked like a desk rejection (which is ok, but not after 6 months)

2014

04/30/15

Games and Economic Behavior

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

no specific reason for rejection

2012

01/18/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Desk Reject

3

N/A

3

Low quality reports

2013

10/19/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Sent to editor who rejected after two month, with comments showing lack of knowledge of the literature.

2015

05/31/16

Games and Economic Behavior

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

game theoretic contribution not significant enough for publishing at this journal

2018

11/08/18

Games and Economic Behavior

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

AE editor rejects a paper that passed the desk at much better journals. The comments are of bad quality and show poor knowledge of economics.

2017

08/07/17

Games and Economic Behavior

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast and fair.

2018

09/23/18

Games and Economic Behavior

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2010

01/02/13

Games and Economic Behavior

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

The editor rejected the manuscript without any useful comments. All the reasons in the rejection letter are official. Really bad experience!

2015

02/09/15

German Economic Review

Accepted

2

2

3

three rounds of R&R (two with the referees, one with the editor); very good experience, reviews vastly improved the paper

2017

04/06/18

German Economic Review

Accepted

5

2

1

A bit slow but a decent report.

2014

03/06/18

Global Finance Journal

Accepted

4

1

1

They looked better from outside. Although paper is accepted, i would hardly deal with them in the future

2013

11/21/14

Global Finance Journal

Accepted

1

2

1

Very fast review process (note: it was a special issue). One refree report who made very useful comments that helped significantly improve the paper. Guest editor very fast in dealing with the process

2018

10/15/18

Health Economics

Pending

3

N/A

2

Revise and resubmit. Good report from reviewers. I am making revisions.

2015

08/30/15

Health Economics

Pending

6

N/A

0

Paper sat at editor's desk for 5 months with no review. Contacted them, told me they will try to send it out to reviewers. Considering withdrawing.

2016

05/23/17

Health Economics

Accepted

2

2

2

helpful comments; quick process; good experience

2014

08/11/15

Health Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Terrible editor. Two refereere reports and no comments from the editor on the reports. Non professionalism of editor and referee: one referee asked to modify the paper and upon seeing the changes did reject saying that I should have done the way it was done in the first place. The editor did not even realized this and rejected. No comments on the reason for rejection was given. My impession was that the editor did not understand the paper the first time (hence no comments the first time) and clearly did not understand the unprofessional behavior of the referees. Editing is a service and it is not mandatory. We do not need dumb editors!!

2011

05/27/13

Health Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

Good report with relevant comments which will be useful if publication of this study is pursued further

Rejected a letter with one referee report but overall experience was good: about 6 weeks, comments sensible will try to implement. Editor Bruce Hollingsworth suggested an alternative journal.

2017

07/27/17

Health Economics

Ref Reject

10

7

2

Paper was a letter. No applied letter should take 9 months to referee and the fact that editor did not solicit additional reports or nag the referee shows they don't care. Should have read the comments here about how badly run this journal is. Thank goodness that there are more journals in health economics started.

2014

03/27/17

Health Economics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

Editor desk rejected based on the identification strategy in the abstract, and clearly did not read the paper. 3 months for desk reject with superficial comments is ridiculous.

2007

03/26/17

Health Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Most dishonest rejection. Paper denounced an error on widely cited paper (unfairly comparing bootstrap vs asypmtotic theory with a nonpivot statistic!). The Editor is regular contributor to that mistake and provided non-sensical rejection. In general, you could bulid up a career writting notes on methodological errors publisehd in this journal.

2013

03/13/14

Health Economics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

Editor at least seemed to have given a pretty detailed reading of the paper, but was disappointed with the amount of time it took for a desk rejection. Comments from editor suggested issues were "fixable" but then basically suggested changing the ID strategy, which basically amounts to writing a whole new paper. So not sure why the editor would say this is "fixable", unless he is trying to say it sucks in a nice way.

2015

04/26/15

Health Economics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

3 months (!) for a desk reject with quite boring paragraphs from the editor along the lines why this is not using Angrist-Pischke methods...

2014

07/16/15

Health Economics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

Basically, just a short e-mail saying that it cannot be accepted and it is more suited to some other types of Journals. The rejection was fine but took too long for a desk reject.

2014

02/04/15

Health Economics

Desk Reject

5

N/A

0

It was crazy to wait that long for a dek rejection...was not happy at all...and there was not any comments or any reviews at all...basically waited for nothing for 5 months..

2012

03/22/13

History of Economic Ideas

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

One of the referee reports was very well informed.

2017

07/28/17

Human Relations

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Reviews not very helpful as it seems like psychologists reviewed it. So they had no idea about basic econometrics. If you submit here, request non-psychology reviewers (it's supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal but maybe it's not)

2015

05/03/16

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

Accepted

1

2

2

Helpful reports and suggestions by the editor

2017

09/30/18

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

Accepted

4

3

1

Supportinve referee report

2011

02/11/15

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

Accepted

5

3

3

Very complementary and helpful reviews. Initial decision was major but then just very minor after that. Good experience.

2015

05/03/16

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

The most thoughtful and detailed review I've ever had. Vastly improved the paper but had to submit elsewhere.

2015

05/03/16

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Good reports

2013

07/28/13

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

good experience.

2014

07/13/14

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

Ref Reject

7

7

3

Initial demanding R&R. Waiting was attrociious and final rejection not properly justified since reviewers went AWOL.

2014

05/03/16

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

1 Month for a desk reject of a paper which was under review much higher ranked journals.

2017

07/11/17

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

desk reject by kahn in 48 hours. happy for a quick decision.

2016

04/09/17

Industrial and Labor Relations Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Many thanks to the editor for most constructive comments. He clearly outlined the major flaws and decided to desk-reject it.

Submitted August 14, 2015. Emailed twice to ask about status and no decency of even replying. Withdrew July 31, 2017. Will never submit to this journal again.

2015

11/19/17

International Journal of Finance and Economics

Accepted

4

5

2

We got RR and referee reports 4 moths after submission, then it took 5 months to acceptance. Most of the 5 moths was because we were makingf teh changes. One referee, although clearly in favour of publication, asked a good deal of revisions and it took us 4 motnhs to respond so most of the delay may have been our fault. Good journal to cosndier for International Economics or Macro stuff

2015

01/28/16

International Journal of Finance and Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

First referee constructive and positive. The second was more critical. Editor rejected.

One report was an absolute travesty and surely had to be disregarded. Other was very thorough and generally favourable. Handling editor still rejects for unclear reasons; very frustrating, but at least fairly timely.

2015

08/01/15

International Journal of Forecasting

Ref Reject

0

2

2

The peer review process was fast. Although the referee comments were in detail some of them were really out of the scope. Use widely accepted methods. Do not offer any innovative technique.

2015

12/02/15

International Journal of Forecasting

Ref Reject

11

N/A

2

Referee reports complete crap. One told me I should have use the methodology introduced by XPTO et al, which was the one I used and cited... Only worthy comment was the editors who stated (and rightly so) that though our model statistically improved forecasts. the difference was not economically meaningful. Ok, experience if it wouldnt be for the 11 months. Hence, terrible.

2011

07/28/14

International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer)

Pending

24

N/A

0

2 years and counting, for a small paper. Editor do not reply to any query.

2014

08/12/16

International Journal of Game Theory?(Springer)

Accepted

3

N/A

2

Both referees read the paper, one of them even found some mistake in the proof.

no submission fee but fast response and fair referee report. A good journal

2017

05/06/18

International Review of Law and Economics

Ref Reject

8

4

2

Rejected after the first R&R.

2010

01/11/13

International Review of Law and Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick and fair outcome with a nice response from the editor

2015

08/10/15

International Tax and Public Finance

Accepted

3

2

2

Good experience with every step completed in a timely fashion

2016

07/12/17

International Tax and Public Finance

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

2017

05/24/18

International Tax and Public Finance

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2011

04/15/13

International Tax and Public Finance

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

The paper was with the journal for five months and we got a rejection with only one referee report with 5 bullet points (two of which were about typos). It is not clear why the referee does not like the paper but it is clear he does not need 5 months for such a report. The comments from the editor are also disappointing: his main suggestion is to send our 7,500 words paper to economics letters. I wonder whether they actually read the document.

2014

11/10/14

International Tax and Public Finance

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Good reports and experience.

2013

08/07/13

International Tax and Public Finance

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

Referee reports were good.

2017

02/13/18

International Tax and Public Finance

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Not a good fit. Editor was kind and offered some useful remarks.

2017

09/02/17

IZA Journal of European Labor Studies

Accepted

2

1

1

2012

01/08/13

IZA Journal of Labor Economics

Accepted

2

1

3

1 useless report, 1 very helpful and 1 okay.

2014

11/11/14

Japan and the World Economy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Depressing experience. Referee report had two short paragraphs, one of them factually incorrect and demonstrating lack of knowledge of basic facts about Japanese exchange rate movements.

2013

03/05/14

Japan and the World Economy

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Bad journal. They pretend to look like an international journal however thay only consider studies related to Japan. Although my article had Nikkei 225 index in it they rejected it anyway!

2015

07/09/16

Journal for Labour Market Research

Accepted

4

2

2

2008

01/08/13

Journal for Labour Market Research

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Both reports were of high quality

2012

01/08/13

Journal for Labour Market Research

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

01/08/13

Journal of Accounting and Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

the referee report adds nothing, and the editor rejects based on the meaningless report

2013

02/13/13

Journal of Accounting and Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

The referee was clearly trying to protect his own paper on a related topic; half of the bullet points referred to that paper. The referee also pretended that I did not develop a two-sided hypothesis (comment like "why didn't the author think of this? Isn't it so obvious?" I mentioned that point multiple times in the intro and lit review). Don't bother submitting here unless you're in the club.

Extremely unprofessional. Not belonging to the club implies rejection.

2016

01/10/17

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Useless referee reports--one was just a single short paragraph. No input from editor either.

2012

04/30/13

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Unprofessional letters, one full of typo and pushed to a no-way-working direction; the other simply was wrong on his/her main comment. Stay away from JAE

2016

03/25/17

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Ok experience. 2 shortish referee reports one fairly positive the other fairly negative, editor decided to reject based on lack of originality. I believe that if that is the reason it could have been desk rejected. Referee reports were on the shrt side, but competent and polite, unfrtunately I doubt that the comments received will help improving the paper.

2014

07/29/14

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

One excellent and detailed (5pages) referee report which helped a lot in revising the paper to a much higher level. Second one was about 15 lines.

2010

04/30/13

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Got two negative referee reports, where one in very useful, and the other is moderately so. Neither referee is hostile. The time to response is not long as well. So despite I got a rejection, the experience is actually not that bad.

2017

10/31/17

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

2012

01/11/13

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Quick response from referees and editor. One useful report and the other less so.

2015

09/08/15

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2013

10/01/13

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

One referee waited for 182 days to submit his/her report as there was a time stamp on the report. Some unfair comments about replicating what other papers have done (which are already discussed in the paper!) Sounded like the referees couldn't let go off other papers' methodologies. Then why are we doing all this work?!

2016

11/10/18

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

4

Competent referee reports, although one of them extremely hostile.

2013

06/11/13

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Referees do not seem to have read the paper well, poorly written reports.

2015

01/11/16

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

At first the handling editor informed us that the paper is sent for peer review. Ona day later they reected it with a one sentence crappy referee report. Controversial journal.

2016

05/22/17

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

The editor informed that she is a cross section econometrician and she did not understand our panel data paper. What can i say more?

2015

10/06/16

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

2016

05/22/17

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2015

12/03/15

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject within 5 days. Not of broad interest.

2015

10/30/15

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rejected based on an initial screening by some expert. Overall, bad experience. Not because of the decision but due the letter content. It was most likely copy-pasted from someone else’s decision letter, and I know this because they forgot to change the name on it (yes, I received a decision letter with someone else's name on it).

2016

05/09/16

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

"The empirical econometric novelty of the paper is not substantial enough ..."

2014

11/01/14

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejection within five days / Poor allocation of coordinating editor (microeconometrician for a time series paper)

2013

03/27/14

Journal of Applied Economics

Ref Reject

13

N/A

1

After about 1 year of wait, the editor decided to reject the submission on the basis of 1 report (2 referees did not respond) that contained only 2-3 lines that already work was done on the topic (although appreciating the empirical analysis).

2011

12/21/12

Journal of Asian Economics

Accepted

4

1

2

Calla Wiemer is a brilliant editor. She helped in improving the exposition of the paper. Overall an excellent experience.

2017

03/28/18

Journal of Banking and Finance

Accepted

2

2

1

Very short to the point referee report. Surprised at how quickly all went

2012

08/12/14

Journal of Banking and Finance

Accepted

3

3

2

good referee reports and relatively quick response

2016

08/27/17

Journal of Banking and Finance

Accepted

3

1

2

Two referees in the first round, good comments. In the second round, the comments are from only one referee, they are easy so revise.

2014

04/26/15

Journal of Banking and Finance

Accepted

1

1

1

Surprisingly quick decision with helpful referee reports.

2012

02/26/13

Journal of Banking and Finance

Accepted

1

3

1

Short straight-to-the point referee report with a few nice points, no bullc*ap. Very nice experience!

2012

12/17/13

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

2013

01/14/14

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

This journal provides a lot of details to track your paper (in total, we got 6 change of status), however, the whole process took almost 6 months but the referee reports were ready in less than 2 months (probably because they get paid since submission is USD250). That is, the handling of the submission took almost 4 months, I think this is unacceptable: what is the point to have quick referee reports if the editorial team takes such a long time? The reports were very brief (

2015

08/04/15

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Not a good referee match given papers subject matter and therefore not very useful comments.

2014

06/25/14

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

8

4

1

Six page referee report after 8 months, answered everything the ref wanted, on second round he said I didn't answer his comments at all (despite a further 10 page reply) and rejected. Editor agreed.

2014

12/16/15

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

3

3

2

Good referee reports

2013

02/03/14

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Mixed referee report; Major comments are contradictory and answerable in the text.

Poor referee. Demanded a lot of work during r&r but reasons for rejection were already known in the first version.

2011

07/04/13

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

low quality and very short referee report...

2013

03/25/13

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

helpful reports, probably fair

2013

03/19/14

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

8

N/A

1

1 Report after 8 months, Seemed like all points raised were easily answerable

2012

03/05/13

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

1 fair and 1 insulting referee report after waiting more than 10 months!

2015

04/05/16

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

Decent referee reports, good turnaround time

2017

12/01/17

Journal of Banking and Finance

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

Took 6 months to receive 3 reports. One was good and one was particularly bad with a lot of non-english expressions.

2013

04/19/14

Journal of Banking and Finance

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Desk reject after 2 months. No comment from the editor,ridiculous journal.

2014

06/26/14

Journal of Banking and Finance

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Desk reject after t2

2014

06/26/14

Journal of Banking and Finance

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected as outside the scope of the journal.

2016

10/19/16

Journal of Banking and Finance

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Banking and Finance

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick desk reject with a few comments from the editor

2010

08/02/13

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

Accepted

4

3

2

excellent experience. very good ref reports

2014

11/30/15

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

Accepted

7

9

2

Fair process and good report. Long wait though.

2013

06/05/15

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Mean and non-sense comments from one referee so that the editor had to apologize. AE didn't provide comments which is odd. Some fair comments which are already addressed in the paper but no one paid attention to that...

2018

11/10/18

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

unfair reports

2014

12/22/14

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

10 weeks, one very poor referee report, the other one hostile, but associate editor made a few good comments

2014

03/27/14

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

2012

02/12/13

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2013

08/13/15

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Quick and reasonable. One extremely useful and one useless report.

2013

11/12/13

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

Both reports very helpful, AE comments showed that he did not understand the paper.

2015

10/19/16

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

1

Desk reject based on a 5 lines initial screening by a ref who was most likely commenting on another paper than the one submitted.

2015

03/08/15

Journal of Business Finance and Accounting

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

Very poor quality referee report after waiting for more than 7 months. Editor claimed that referee is an expert in the field. What a joke!

2015

12/09/15

Journal of Business Finance and Accounting

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

The editor said that referee is an expert in this field. The referee report is very good and even show a positive view to my paper.

2016

04/21/17

Journal of Business Research

Accepted

13

2

2

Had wait for the first response awfully long. Insightful and constructive comments. Think about submitting again

2012

01/05/18

Journal of Common Market Studies

Accepted

6

2

4

Helpful editor, fair referees.

2012

09/10/13

Journal of Common Market Studies

Accepted

2

1

2

Fantastic journal. Comments very helpful, editors took time to read the paper and were engaged throughout the process.

2014

01/16/15

Journal of Common Market Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Tough but fair ref reports that raise valid questions. Good experience, even though a reject.

2015

04/08/16

Journal of Comparative Economics

Pending

2

N/A

2

2012

12/28/12

Journal of Comparative Economics

Accepted

4

2

1

Pretty efficient process

2011

02/06/13

Journal of Comparative Economics

Accepted

6

3

2

2006

01/10/13

Journal of Comparative Economics

Accepted

5

5

2

I got two very different referee reports, one was very critical but absolutely low quality. It took me a lot of time to deal with unqualified comments. It took the referees / editor 5 months to look at my revised script to then just accept it without any further comments. A stronger editor could have handled the submission more efficiently also pointing out the weakness of the 2nd report.

2014

10/29/14

Journal of Comparative Economics

Accepted

6

2

2

Longish time to first response but good reports and a ref who just loved digging into my equations. Would submit here again, editor was fair and kept things moving along.

2017

11/09/17

Journal of Comparative Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Comparative Economics

Ref Reject

0

4

2

4 months for ref. rejection. Both reports made non-sense suggestions (not sure if read through), editor did not read the article.

2017

07/21/17

Journal of Comparative Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Handled by the new co-editor. Just a one-paragraph report saying that the results are not "novel".

2016

01/24/17

Journal of Comparative Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2011

02/02/13

Journal of Comparative Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Comparative Economics

Ref Reject

8

N/A

1

So-so report. Editor claimed to have two reports but gave me only one.

2016

01/17/17

Journal of Comparative Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor provided quick and fair comments why the paper is not suitable for the journal.

2013

12/13/13

Journal of Comparative Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor noted that paper of an associate editor was not cited but did not mention the name of the paper.

2012

03/18/13

Journal of Comparative Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2011

12/20/12

Journal of Comparative Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Quick and efficient

2017

01/17/18

Journal of Conflict Resolution?(Sage)

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Desk reject due to lack of scope of the manuscript

2018

11/20/18

Journal of Corporate Finance

Pending

10

N/A

0

Long waiting for 10 months, send 3 emails to ask, reply: under review

2013

02/26/14

Journal of Corporate Finance

Accepted

2

4

1

Very good referee report. Thanks!

2013

01/31/14

Journal of Corporate Finance

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

some useful comments from ref despite recommending reject

2016

07/10/17

Journal of Corporate Finance

Ref Reject

9

N/A

1

Submission for a special issue. Waited over 9 month for a half-page low quality report.

2015

08/29/16

Journal of Corporate Finance

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

Referee identified some problems of the paper, but her suggestions were incorrect and provided references were not suitable.

2012

03/14/13

Journal of Corporate Finance

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Useful referee report

2013

07/23/13

Journal of Corporate Finance

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Helpful referee report

2013

03/05/14

Journal of Corporate Finance

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

Ridiculous! Desk reject after 3 months

2016

03/08/17

Journal of Cultural Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Write any form of equation and you're skewered!

2015

04/03/16

Journal of Development Economics

Pending

12

N/A

0

After 12 months the paper was not even sent out to review or rejected despite 10 emails. Just the process of having the paper withdrawn took 2 months. Disgraceful!

2017

06/01/17

Journal of Development Economics

Accepted

3

4

2

2017

08/22/18

Journal of Development Economics

Accepted

3

2

1

The co-editor was very efficient and apparently read the paper. First response in less than 3 months. The report asked for a lot of work but helped with improving the paper a great deal.

2015

12/31/16

Journal of Development Economics

Accepted

4

3

1

2012

03/20/13

Journal of Development Economics

Accepted

6

1

3

Useful ref reports and helpful comments from co-editor. Courteous notes from editor&co-editors when first response was delayed. Overall, great experecience!

2012

08/27/13

Journal of Development Economics

Accepted

6

1

2

2011

01/02/13

Journal of Development Economics

Accepted

3

1

2

Great experience, one of the referees truly improved the paper substantially.

2017

02/07/18

Journal of Development Economics

Accepted

5

3

2

Good reports and no nitpicking on the revision. Good experience overall.

2017

06/13/18

Journal of Development Economics

Accepted

3

3

2

Good experience. Ref reports both frank and helpful. Referees tough & somewhat demanding. Editor guidance also helpful. Basically max 3-month turnaround from their side at any stage.

2013

01/30/14

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Ok reports with some useful comments

2013

06/11/13

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

great reviews and useful comments for ref

2013

04/30/15

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2016

08/10/16

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Referee reports were modestly helpful, though there was very little overlap between what the referees commented on.

2012

04/07/13

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

10

N/A

1

Submitted 4 February, rejected 29 December with 1 ok referee report that had been submitted in May. The journal originally sent me the referee's letter to the editor instead of the referee report - took almost a week to actually get the report.

2014

01/21/15

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

Long process. 2 months for decision from being notified that "reviews received" and one of the referee reports was dated 7 months ago. moderately helpful but whole process took too long.

2013

11/22/13

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Excellent and detailed report, fair decision.

2013

01/20/14

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Co-editor felt nothing "wrong" with paper but does not made enough of a contribution to warrant publication. (Shouldn't these cases be desk-rejected instead of being rejected after 6 months?)

2017

11/27/17

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

one nasty and rudely written report with inaccuracies as well, one cited lack of fit.

2017

04/28/18

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

Fair decision. Excellent ref report. Pointed out the problems in the model and also admitted that its difficult to take care of all those problems

2012

07/13/13

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Thoughtful comments from the referees and the editor.

2014

10/22/14

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Excellent reports that really improved the paper.

2013

10/22/14

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

excellent comments from referees

2014

06/29/14

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2011

02/18/13

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

2016

12/09/17

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

rejected after 5 months of 'reviews completed'

2012

03/22/13

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

No theoretical model was developed.

2014

03/03/15

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

only 1 referee report 3 sentences long by reviewer who did not read the paper

2013

05/18/13

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

Good reports but very slow to get a rejection

2012

11/26/13

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

The referees loved it, very positive comments. Then editor Dean Karlan rejected it for fit. Could have desk rejected and saved us all the trouble.

2012

05/18/15

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

4

3

3

2015

08/11/16

Journal of Development Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

0

Six months to respond. One referee did read the paper, the other responded with odd arguments.

2015

06/23/15

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in 2 weeks.

2018

05/05/18

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

18 days, no indication that either adstract or paper was read

2016

11/16/16

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2 weeks to desk reject. No reason provided, in line with the journal policy.

2017

07/31/17

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

No indication that the paper was read. Then again, it only took a couple of weeks to get the rejection.

2011

04/29/14

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

1 week

2016

05/24/16

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2 weeks

2016

10/24/16

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/29/12

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2016

10/24/16

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Very slow. Desk rejected after 7 weeks. The editor's comments are not informative.

2018

08/02/18

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in 2 weeks without a reason

2017

10/04/17

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

6

N/A

0

6 months to desk reject with little reason. Expected much better from this journal.

2016

08/05/16

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2014

07/26/14

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Arbitrary decision without sending it to refs by incompetent editor.

2014

08/09/14

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Desk rejection after 1 month.

2018

08/06/18

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in a week. They have officially adopted the policy of not giving reasons for desk rejections given the 75% desk rejection rate.

Rejected and no reason given. Here is all I received: "I regret to inform you that as part of a pre-screening process applied to all submitted manuscripts to the JDE, I have read your paper and have decided not to put it into the regular review process. This is designed to reduce the overall turnaround time for the journal, especially given the high volume of submissions." This, of course, is useless.

2016

02/21/17

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Desk rejected after 1 month without any comments

2012

02/18/13

Journal of Development Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected within 1 week. No reason given.

2017

07/31/17

Journal of Development Studies

Accepted

3

2

2

good experience

2017

09/11/17

Journal of Development Studies

Accepted

4

3

2

2014

01/18/15

Journal of Development Studies

Accepted

4

1

2

2016

12/09/17

Journal of Development Studies

Accepted

3

2

2

good experience

2017

09/11/17

Journal of Development Studies

Ref Reject

4

4

2

Lousy reports showing lack of proper reading. One rejected outright, one offered R&R. The editor rejected without reading the paper based on one referee. Basically if you don't make everyone happy on the first round you stand no chance at this journal.

2017

10/10/17

Journal of Development Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk Reject after 7 days

2012

06/30/15

Journal of Development Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

the issue did not fit... no justifications. 2nd bad experience for me with this journal

2015

03/13/15

Journal of Econometrics

Accepted

8

7

2

2 good reports, clearly improved the paper. So slow...

2012

07/02/14

Journal of Econometrics

Ref Reject

11

N/A

2

one referee report was in after three months, AE waited 9 months before making a recommendation

2014

09/11/16

Journal of Econometrics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

While the paper was rejected the referee reports were in-depth and very helpful. Roughly 2-3 pages of comments from each reviewer.

2011

05/01/13

Journal of Econometrics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

Only one referee report. Comments are not useful at all.

2015

12/05/16

Journal of Econometrics

Ref Reject

10

N/A

3

Helpful comments from referees and editor. But 10 months is too long.

2014

12/02/14

Journal of Econometrics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

not so helpful comments

2015

03/14/16

Journal of Econometrics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Some fair some unwarranted comments. Got the rejection after 185 days, referees like to wait until the last couple of days to read papers!

2018

11/10/18

Journal of Econometrics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2012

02/05/13

Journal of Econometrics

Ref Reject

11

N/A

2

Long wait. Two referee reports: one decent, one poor. Silly comments from AE.

2014

08/25/15

Journal of Econometrics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2011

12/28/12

Journal of Economic and Social Measurement

Accepted

8

N/A

0

Accepted without revisions. Even with the moderately long wait, its hard to complain about that!

2013

03/14/14

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Accepted

4

1

3

2013

02/28/14

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Accepted

2

4

1

It was very smooth. The report was very entensive and it required a lot of extra work but it was insightful as well (however, as always, we had to compromise in some things we were not fully convinced the referee was right). The process was very fast. Overall, very good experience.

2017

12/21/17

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Accepted

2

1

2

Two reports with mixed view. One review was good, and helped to improve the paper, the other one (recommended rejection) was raising many peripheral issues. Editorial processes were very fast.

2017

10/19/17

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Accepted

1

1

3

Quick and well handled by the editor. Decent reports.

2017

07/04/18

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Accepted

4

3

2

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Accepted

4

1

2

Good reports

2012

04/04/13

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Accepted

2

1

2

2017

09/01/17

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Accepted

4

3

2

One very good report, the other OK. Efficient handling by editor.

2012

03/18/13

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Accepted

0

2

1

I heard back really quickly with helpful comments.

2016

01/12/17

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Accepted

6

3

2

Very helpful feedback that made this a better paper.

2013

02/28/14

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

8

N/A

0

Very slow...

2012

03/14/13

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Terrible reports.

2015

05/24/15

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

inquiry after 6 month: "several referees invited but still no reports", rejected after 9 month: "sent the paper to four reviewers but only received two reports". Reports were ok, but total process took way too long.

2015

03/24/16

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Very disappointing experience with the journal and refereeing process. It took 6 months a referee to look at the paper and decide that it does not make enough contribution to be published in this journal (very smart idea). The contributions are very thoroughly detailed in the introduction, ie, the referee had to read around 3 pages and took him/her 6 months to do so. The referee made also several nonsensical remarks about the methodology giving a signal that s/he hasn’t thoroughly went through the paper. The other referee was very positive but the editor followed the negative report.

2015

02/24/17

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

Exceptionally long time

2012

10/12/13

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

9

N/A

1

bad experience

2012

05/19/13

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

Seemed like a very long time to only receive one referee report.

2015

11/05/15

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

8

N/A

3

Good reports. Took way too long... prob will avoid in future

2014

07/31/15

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Good reports

2014

10/21/14

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

6

N/A

0

1 very good referee reports, 1 mediocre, editor was nice.

2013

04/20/14

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Process was acceptable.

2013

08/08/14

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

bad reports but thankfully fast

2012

08/30/13

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2018

03/11/18

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

02/06/13

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor misread the title and barely read the abstract.

2016

04/18/17

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor response, not a fit to the journal, too theory! Perhaps we can call JABO an experimental journal now. Didn't refund the submission fee.

2014

09/16/14

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

The editor barely read the paper and decided to reject!

2015

12/22/15

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

rejected in exactly three weeks - editor said that the topic only gets published in JEBO if there's a special issue (which mine was not connected with). Still, refreshing for honesty.

2016

06/09/16

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor says not a good

2016

09/11/16

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor says not a good

2016

09/11/16

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Pending

1

1

1

Good report and conditionally accepted with minor revisions.

2013

12/06/13

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

3

1

2

One of the best run journals in macro. Solid referee report and very quick response.

2015

06/15/15

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

3

2

3

Extremely efficient process with good comments by referees. Resulted in much better paper

2013

02/25/15

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

3

1

2

Excellent reports. Really insightful comments that make the paper a lot better. Fast response from the Editor. JEDC is well run.

2015

05/12/15

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

1

1

1

2 months between submission and final decision! I'm amazed.

2013

12/30/13

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

3

2

3

Very efficient process

2013

08/18/15

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

10

8

2

One referee posted two of his own papers including url in the report, one of which was just accepted in the same journal before sending reports. Tried to block publication in the second round as well but editor overrode. Second report very good.

2015

09/27/17

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

3

2

1

Very helpful referee report. Very quick response from Editor (Otrok) after revision.

2013

11/20/14

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

9

3

2

2011

09/02/13

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

4

3

3

very good constructive process

2016

07/13/17

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

3

1

2

very good experience.

2012

10/04/15

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Accepted

2

1

1

Very very good comments, referee was clearly very knowledgeable. Very tough report on the first RR, extensive changes suggested, though all feasible and mostly all improved the quality of the paper. Editor contributed with some helpful comments as well. Very happy with the process, definetly a favorite for future

2014

07/28/14

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Ref Reject

20

N/A

1

2012

09/22/14

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Ref Reject

14

N/A

2

Ridiculous experience. Reports with no use, in one case even mentioning the need of something that was already done in the paper. Unanswered letters to editor by the 6th and 12th months after submission, only got reply after getting in touch to editorial office.

2012

01/16/14

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

Poor referee report

2012

05/29/14

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Just over a month to referee reject.

2018

10/01/18

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2012

08/02/13

Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

Ref Reject

1

N/A

0

Bad experience on the whole. Seems to be unfit the reviewing editor's preference but the handling editor was kind though.

The time was not long (bit less than 10 weeks), the outcome was what is normal in this profession (Referee rejection). However, it seems the process is one editor first decide whether to send to referee or not but a second editor makes the final decision (William Kerr)? (are we a bit paranoiac?). That mean 5 people read my paper?

2018

08/13/18

Journal of Economic Geography

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in less than one month. Fair and useful comment by the editor. Recommended

2015

03/03/15

Journal of Economic Geography

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2018

03/11/18

Journal of Economic Geography

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejection in one week. Editor actually read the paper. Rejected due to lack of signficant contribution, fair assessment.

2015

02/27/15

Journal of Economic Geography

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject after 2 weeks due to bad fit.

2018

06/09/18

Journal of Economic Growth

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Efficient. Six weeks for response. One useful report, the other poor.

2013

01/18/14

Journal of Economic Growth

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

1 reasonable report

2018

07/21/18

Journal of Economic Growth

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

one useless ref report

2013

02/10/14

Journal of Economic Growth

Ref Reject

12

N/A

1

Waited 12 weeks for six lines from one ref. Charging for this should be a crime.

2017

07/29/17

Journal of Economic Growth

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

A very detailed and fair review of our research, providing a balanced judgement of our achievements. Constructive and very specific. In-depth argumentation why there is no sufficient progress compared to common wisdom. Also a very kind editorial letter. Excellent experience.

2015

12/08/15

Journal of Economic Growth

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Good reviews by the referee and the AE. We agreed with most of the comments. Took seven weeks to get these reviews, pretty efficient journal.

2017

06/10/17

Journal of Economic Growth

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Very unfair review by the referee and by the editor-in-chief. The reviewer has no clue as to what is happening in the paper and to what questions in the literature the paper is trying to answer. I don't think he/she took a wee bit of pain to find out the context. The editor-in-chief failed to see this and was only interested in promoting his agenda of unified growth theory. Very, very disappointed.

2016

02/06/17

Journal of Economic Growth

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

WE got 3 tough and long referee reports. It is not very clear why it got rejected at the end (I guess referees recommended rejection but thsi was not stated in their reports so it coudl have been the editor who thought it was difficut to get published given the work needed). Overall, the reports were good so no complains.

2015

07/13/17

Journal of Economic Growth

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Galor and the referees felt the contribution wasn't substantial enough. I suppose if your work is primarily empirical then you'd better do something that's close to the editor's personal interest, otherwise there will always be the criticism that you need more theory. Would submit again.

2014

10/09/14

Journal of Economic Growth

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

Two referee reviews. One is very productive while the other is suck

2015

08/13/15

Journal of Economic History

Accepted

3

5

3

Editor acted as 4th referee once referees were satisfied.

2014

09/19/17

Journal of Economic History

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Two reports that are quite detailed. Editor (Collins) might read the paper, but did not say much. The reviewers "firmly" recommend rejection but I see that most problems can be fixed. Overall, not bad experience. BTW, "Under review" all the time during the reviewing process, similar to AEA journals (but different from some other journals using manuscript central).

2018

05/22/18

Journal of Economic History

Ref Reject

8

N/A

0

Two very thin referee reports. Referees obviously did not read the paper. Extremly disappointing for a journal which claims to be the number one field journal.

2016

09/23/17

Journal of Economic History

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

1 positive but short & useless, 1 incompetent negative who didn't even understand the historical topic. Grad student who manages inbox for ed took bad review at face value.

2015

09/28/15

Journal of Economic History

Ref Reject

0

N/A

0

2 useless reports by refs who barely skimmed the paper, one completely mistook the tested var & misreported it in his comments, editor's comments (Bill Collins) were smug and obnoxious but shallow

2016

09/21/17

Journal of Economic History

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Very disappointing. Comments were not about the historical content of the paper and one referee was obviously pushing his own work/research agenda

2015

10/07/16

Journal of Economic Inequality

Accepted

8

1

2

2010

01/06/13

Journal of Economic Inequality

Accepted

3

4

2

Good reports, smooth process.

2013

04/20/14

Journal of Economic Inequality

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

helpful referee reports.

2018

05/03/18

Journal of Economic Inequality

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick desk rejection. The AE was gentle and actually read my paper. He suggested a more suitable outlet.

2016

05/17/16

Journal of Economic Issues

Accepted

8

2

2

Long time to first response and had to chase up editor, but comments were helpful and editor was very engaged in the revision process. Would submit here again now that I know what to expect.

2015

03/15/16

Journal of Economic Issues

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Over 8 weeks for a desk reject due to poor fit for journal. Completely unacceptable.

2016

05/30/16

Journal of Economic Psychology

Accepted

4

3

2

2016

05/03/17

Journal of Economic Psychology

Accepted

2

1

2

5 weeks to first response. Really good advice from journal editor and 2 good reports.

2014

10/22/15

Journal of Economic Psychology

Accepted

2

3

2

Helpful reports, overall good experience.

2016

02/03/17

Journal of Economic Psychology

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

lenghty referee reports; rejection because of one referee even though I discuss his point

2018

08/07/18

Journal of Economic Surveys

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

One ref in favor, one against. Fair points raised, although I would have preferred a R&R naturally.

2016

02/23/17

Journal of Economic Surveys

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Horrible...very low quality reports

2015

07/29/16

Journal of Economic Surveys

Ref Reject

14

N/A

2

2012

12/05/13

Journal of Economic Surveys

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

03/18/14

Journal of Economic Surveys

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2017

06/10/17

Journal of Economic Theory

Pending

5

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Economic Theory

Accepted

4

4

3

Decent reports; AE was a bit difficult, but ultimately helpful

2011

01/29/13

Journal of Economic Theory

Accepted

6

6

2

2009

12/22/12

Journal of Economic Theory

Accepted

3

2

2

Good reports and constructive feedback from AE; only 1 round of R&R

2016

03/13/18

Journal of Economic Theory

Accepted

3

2

2

Good experience with helpful AE and reviewer.

2016

11/18/17

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Pretty helpful reports. Editor handled it well.

2015

06/17/16

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

3

3

4

Worst experience with a paper submission ever. Xavier Vives rejected the paper after 4 rounds and 2 years based on the recommendation of an incompetent referee who couldn't understand the paper and kept making bogus claims about errors in the analysis or interpretation in every round. Even though I debunked his claims every time, he was just coming up with new ones. The editor didn't bother to read through the lines of my responses to his previous reports to see how incompetent the referee is, or to look at the big picture and account also for the reports of other referees who wrote much more competent reports and had recommended acceptance several rounds earlier. He just casually decided to close the file because it had been under review for too long without any concern for anything. It's the kind of disappointment that makes you stop caring about research.

2015

10/22/17

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

2010

12/24/12

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

Three excellent reports, the referees had really put an effort. I was very grateful despite the rejection.

2014

10/15/14

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

Short report

2011

04/04/13

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

7

N/A

3

2017

07/25/18

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

2010

01/09/13

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Average quality reports

2012

04/10/13

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Referees rejected. Reasonable. Fast turnover.

2017

05/08/18

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

4

N/A

4

Positive feedback from the editor. But referees are very negative.

2014

07/05/14

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2013

11/22/13

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

4

N/A

4

Positive feedback from the editor. But referees are very negative.

2014

07/05/14

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

6

N/A

0

"not enough contribution". useless reports.

2014

09/09/14

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Good referee reports

2015

02/13/16

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

2010

12/20/12

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

referee repots good

2012

04/26/13

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2014

08/19/15

Journal of Economic Theory

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Hellwig rejected, suggested 2nd tier journal such as ET

2010

03/05/13

Journal of Economic Theory

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

06/03/13

Journal of Economic Theory

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

06/03/13

Journal of Economic Theory

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Not a good fit. Desk reject in 48hs

2017

08/17/17

Journal of Economic Theory

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Rejected by an Associate Editor, who actually read the paper, got the main idea clearly, and wrote a 2 full-page report with reasoning why this is not for JET and what journal outlets might be considered. This AE note is better than lousy referee reports that I used to receive at a low level journal. Pleasant experience overall. Will submit again.

2017

12/15/17

Journal of Economic Theory

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

editor was nice enough to drop a page or so of precise and useful comments

2013

02/20/14

Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier)

Accepted

3

3

2

Efficient and professional. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and less than two months in the second round.

2015

05/24/16

Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier)

Accepted

4

4

3

Excellent process and referees

2015

09/18/16

Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier)

Accepted

3

2

2

Editor is very efficient and professional. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and about two months in the second round.

2016

08/20/17

Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier)

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

Very good referee report

2013

03/21/14

Journal of Economic Theory (Elsevier)

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

2 reports + report from AE which is a lot better than referee reports

2018

11/05/18

Journal of Economics

Accepted

2

1

2

Fast response; good reports.

2011

02/07/13

Journal of Economics

Accepted

3

1

1

editor very helpful. 1 referee asks for many changes, but the comments are in general useful.

2010

10/04/15

Journal of Economics and Finance

Accepted

2

1

2

2016

01/28/17

Journal of Economics and Finance Education

Accepted

2

1

2

Fast turnaround. Excellent communication with editor. Accepted 4 days after resub. Thorough ref reports with good comments. Nice when they actually read the paper.

2017

02/03/18

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Accepted

9

9

2

It took 4 rounds of referee reports. The referee was clearly delaying in order to hold the paper for citation of his own work. Once that work was published, he finally accepted the paper. The paper was published in 2016

2010

06/09/17

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Accepted

6

5

2

All is well when it ends well.

2013

05/29/14

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Accepted

6

6

2

2016

07/18/17

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Accepted

3

8

2

Initial response was quick. Editor and referees seemed willing to listen to reason which encouraged me to work hard on the revision and make my case when I thought reports misguided.

2012

09/09/13

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Accepted

3

3

2

Decent referee reports that indeed improve the paper

2014

02/26/16

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Accepted

3

3

2

Good reports that were specific and helpful. Production process is quite efficient, but the journal does not post articles online in advance which harms visibility a little.

2011

05/30/13

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Accepted

3

2

2

Very fast and professional referee reports.

2017

02/24/18

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2012

04/12/13

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

2017

06/13/18

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

One good report. Comments were fair

2016

07/04/16

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

One excellent report, one mediocre report

2015

09/05/15

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Economics and Management Strategy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject after 7 days - out of scope

2016

08/24/16

Journal of Empirical Finance

Pending

6

N/A

2

referees appear to understand the area. the revision requirements seem achievable. Rather short reports for waiting 6 months. We'll see.

2013

05/22/14

Journal of Empirical Finance

Accepted

1

1

1

2013

02/10/14

Journal of Empirical Finance

Accepted

7

6

1

Accepted after two rounds. One referee report---which is actually better than any report ever received with this paper (including those from RFS, JFQA, and MS)

2013

02/19/17

Journal of Empirical Finance

Accepted

6

1

2

Update to previous pending post. The acceptance came quickly after the second round of review.

Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Do not waste your time with this journal.

2014

10/19/15

Journal of Empirical Finance

Ref Reject

14

N/A

1

Had to beg to get a useless ref report. Do not waste your time with this journal.

2014

10/19/15

Journal of Empirical Finance

Ref Reject

10

N/A

1

Extremely slow process, even though they advertise quick turnaround time. Only 1 report, but a fair assessment of the paper.

2016

09/02/17

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Pending

6

N/A

2

Close call...Editor gave the benefit-of-a-doubt and requested revisions

2013

02/28/14

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Accepted

2

3

2

2012

12/04/13

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Accepted

2

3

2

First decision in 2 months. Second decision took 2.5 months. Third round (acceptance) took 2 weeks.

2012

07/07/14

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Accepted

6

6

2

reviewer reports were okay, but the process took so long.

2002

11/27/16

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Accepted

5

4

3

2010

01/09/13

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Accepted

6

5

2

one good referee, the other not very good, helpful editor

2012

10/22/13

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Accepted

10

3

3

overall, pretty smooth process (always easier to say when the paper ends up being published)

2016

09/26/17

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2012

08/02/13

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2011

12/20/12

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2016

12/05/16

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

12

N/A

2

Somehow it took a whole year for the referees to write short and horribly useless reports which show they did not even bother to read the introduction.

2016

06/08/17

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

3

N/A

0

Very detailed referee reports

2017

07/19/18

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

relatively fast, but referees totally uninformed of the literature

2014

12/03/14

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

One up, one down...editor decided down.

2011

02/28/14

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Fast response. One brief report. One detailed report.

2015

10/01/15

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2012

02/20/13

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2013

02/28/14

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Two reviews - one very positive, and one that was clearly from someone outside of the field that was not familiar with the methods or the literature. Response from editor sided with this second referee and provided little justification. Much better process and better reviewers at JAERE.

2015

12/14/15

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2006

01/09/13

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2012

07/22/13

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

2016

12/09/17

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2011

08/02/13

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk-rejected in 3 days. The Editor Requate cannot distinguish between partial and general equilibrium. Waste of the submission fee. To avoid.

2016

07/29/16

Journal of European Economic History

Accepted

3

3

2

One report was very useful and of very good quality, the other was of good quality but not very useful. Very professional way of handling the process

2007

04/16/13

Journal of Evolutionary Economics

Accepted

10

3

1

Very helpful report which has permitted to increase the quality of the paper

2012

11/08/13

Journal of Family and Economic Issues

Ref Reject

4

2

4

Four reports with huge list of changes -- Editor rejected after R&R because she didn't like the data

2013

07/27/15

Journal of Finance

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

2012

12/27/12

Journal of Finance

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

referee report was short, but demonstrated expertise, could have addressed all of the comments but ultimately rejected under KS

2012

05/22/14

Journal of Finance

Ref Reject

4

3

2

3 rounds then rejected by editor, paper was improved by addressing reviewers' comments, eventually accepted at RFS

2005

05/22/14

Journal of Finance

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

This was the worst referee report ever. The referee completely misunderstood a *very* basic primary school model and then went on to criticize and complain about the empirical results. I wrote the editor but nothing changed. I don’t care so much because I know that the paper is a breakthrough. But it does move my prior of “affiliation doesn’t matter, just the paper” (yes, a prior that no one here seems to have). Finally, it reminds me of the CEO voice tone BS paper that they published a couple of years ago.

2018

08/21/18

Journal of Finance

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

concise and useless comments.

2016

08/15/16

Journal of Finance

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2013

03/18/14

Journal of Finance

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Bruno Biais was AE. Got most thorough, informed, and useful referee reports in 5 years.

thorough but not brutal enough - the paper was not very a contribution at all at the time and needed a much harsher rejection, seriously

2012

05/22/14

Journal of Finance

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

A poor quality referee report.

2014

10/28/16

Journal of Finance

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

referee reports were very thorough and demonstrated expertise, rejections were fair - just wish I would have gotten these reviewers the first time I submitted the paper. I revised as a new submission based on comments from a previous reviewer at the journal

2013

05/22/14

Journal of Finance

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

5 days. Got the refund soon after request.

2013

12/06/13

Journal of Finance

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Great comments from Philip Bond

2016

10/17/16

Journal of Finance

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

I received 3 paragraphs of comments from the AE. Very good comments even if he slightly misunderstood the contribution.

2013

06/22/16

Journal of Finance

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

KS rejected based on AE's brief report; AE comments somewhat useful but a tad unfair (main criticism applies to many papers publ. in JF in the area)

2013

02/24/14

Journal of Finance

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk Rejected with AE report

2013

10/04/17

Journal of Finance

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in 10 days with useless AE comments completely unrelated to the paper. Awful experience given the astronomic submission fee!

2013

02/26/14

Journal of Finance

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

09/21/13

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Accepted

1

N/A

1

very comprehensive report. referee is very fast. R&R only takes one week.

2013

11/28/13

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Accepted

3

3

1

1 report each of 2 rounds

2013

08/10/14

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Accepted

1

N/A

1

very comprehensive report. referee is very fast. R&R only takes one week.

2013

11/28/13

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Accepted

2

2

1

Great experience; precise and informed referee report; 1st round for major improvements, 2nd round pretty much converged to acceptance.

2012

02/24/14

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Accepted

2

1

1

Great experience - referee and editor very helpful

2014

05/14/14

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

a 2 paragraph referee report that was not particularly helpful - at least the turnaround time was fast - might as well have been a desk rejection

2013

05/22/14

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

negative albeit fair referee report

2014

02/24/14

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Two paragraph rubbish referee report

2017

08/17/17

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

repor

2013

06/07/13

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Ref Reject

3

3

1

Rubbish report ! Referee obviously has no clue of what's going on. (s)he asks me to reference a paper I myself wrote when I wa a PhD student but which I did not send anywhere. if we go by his saying, then all finance articles are purely pointless.

2015

06/11/15

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Fair report

2013

08/06/15

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

2015

06/11/15

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Nice referee report.

2013

07/03/13

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

awful experience. Ref needed 6 months to produce a paragraph of a response. Comments were meant for another paper. Editor didn't even bother to look at it.

2012

02/10/14

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Fast response but average comments... I am not sure the referee knows the topic area well enough

2013

09/26/13

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk-rejected after ten days. Suggested a general interest journal.

2013

02/09/13

Journal of Financial Econometrics

Accepted

12

4

2

4 rounds

2010

12/28/12

Journal of Financial Econometrics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

2011

12/28/12

Journal of Financial Econometrics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

1 month to wait for a desk reject is too long. "We are hesitant to publish purely empirical papers" comment could have been boilerplate but seemed uninformative

2013

05/22/14

Journal of Financial Econometrics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Not a good fit. One month for the desk reject.

2018

09/13/18

Journal of Financial Economics

Accepted

4

3

1

relatively fast process and referee helped to improve the papers. might be a once in a career event.

2008

05/22/14

Journal of Financial Economics

Accepted

3

N/A

1

2014

05/17/14

Journal of Financial Economics

Accepted

3

N/A

1

2014

05/17/14

Journal of Financial Economics

Accepted

3

2

1

2012

12/22/12

Journal of Financial Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

A five pages fantasy report written by a phd-student who did not read the paper. I have no clue who the referee wanted to impress, maybe the editor?

2015

02/02/17

Journal of Financial Economics

Ref Reject

2

2

1

Reject and resubmit. Rejected afterwards.

2015

10/04/17

Journal of Financial Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

The usual randomness from the JFE

2014

05/25/14

Journal of Financial Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

An low quality and useless report

2014

12/06/14

Journal of Financial Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Referee clearly didn't read the paper carefully. Comments were non-constructive and some were even wrong. Clearly the referee was someone not in the field of the paper (Asset Pricing). Said the contribution was not enough for a JFE publication.

2017

08/17/17

Journal of Financial Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

got the impression that the reviewer did not read the paper and decided to dispute the review, the dispute process took slightly more than 1 month and the new reviewer sided with the old reviewer. also received comments from the old reviewer that were better than the first review. overall satisfied with the dispute process in terms of speed and fairness

2012

05/22/14

Journal of Financial Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Reject based on a priori feeling of the reviewer with no scientific arguments but rather personal perception of her/his reading. Next time, I will come back with a vip or friend of the editorial team to have positive a priori.

2016

12/09/16

Journal of Financial Economics

Ref Reject

8

N/A

1

No response for seven and a half months. Sent gentle reminder/request to Editor. Go report in 2 days. Hastily written by PhD student. No clue about topic etc would be kind thing to say. Just thoroughly unprofessional report. Something like that should not leave even an undergrad's desk.

2015

11/17/16

Journal of Financial Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

referee report was of little help

2012

12/30/12

Journal of Financial Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Referee misread the paper, and hammered us on points that we were not making. Tyranny of the single review. The saving grace is that it was fast.

2017

10/06/17

Journal of Financial Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

1 day rejection

2013

02/26/14

Journal of Financial Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

had to pay $100 instead of the usual submission fee. Deemed too narrow for the journal

2013

05/22/14

Journal of Financial Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in 3 hours, which I found out about from a bullshit list they upload showing the papers sent to referees. The worst experience so far. It was almost like somebody pickpocketed and got my $600

2013

02/26/14

Journal of Financial Intermediation

Accepted

3

1

2

2012

12/27/12

Journal of Financial Intermediation

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2011

12/20/12

Journal of Financial Intermediation

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

The quality of the report was disappointing.

2012

03/19/14

Journal of Financial Intermediation

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Not very friendly report; referee wants to kill us

2013

10/28/13

Journal of Financial Intermediation

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

2013

03/18/14

Journal of Financial Intermediation

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

editor was helpful in replying to inquiry regarding reason for desk rejection. said it was a matter of fit. paper took over a month to get desk rejected because of problems with elsevier system. journal does not sound like a good fit for my research agenda. topics should probably be closely related to banking

2014

07/14/14

Journal of Financial Intermediation

Desk Reject

0

1

0

$ 200 is high for an immediat desk rejection

2014

08/27/14

Journal of Financial Markets

Accepted

1

1

1

Near-perfect experience. Extremely helpful comments that significantly improved the paper in the end. Great editor with quick response time too.

2013

08/01/13

Journal of Financial Markets

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

2011

12/28/12

Journal of Financial Markets

Ref Reject

1

1

1

Excellent referee report with excellent suggestions. Fast response and quality report made me satisfied even though I got a fast rejection.

2012

08/02/13

Journal of Financial Markets

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

expert who cited himself, brutal but fair referee report that led to major revision

2013

05/22/14

Journal of Financial Research

Accepted

3

3

2

2012

02/12/13

Journal of Financial Research

Accepted

3

2

2

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Financial Research

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

Good referee report

2013

01/16/14

Journal of Financial Research

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

They just continue their practice of not providing any comments on desk rejections despite a US200 submission fee and really ambiguous aim and scope. Not for the faint-hearted.

2016

01/03/17

Journal of Financial Services Research

Accepted

3

1

1

overall v good experience. ref report had useful but not overly comprehensive suggestions. quick and clear communication with editor

2016

07/10/17

Journal of Financial Services Research

Ref Reject

4

3

3

2011

12/29/12

Journal of Futures Markets

Accepted

3

3

1

Good reports, led to significantly better paper

2012

03/19/14

Journal of Happiness Studies

Accepted

5

3

2

Long process. Fair editors.

2012

04/29/14

Journal of Health Economics

Accepted

6

3

2

2014

01/04/16

Journal of Health Economics

Accepted

4

5

2

Total time to acceptance: 13 months

2012

12/30/13

Journal of Health Economics

Accepted

4

3

3

Good experience, nice though critical editor, total time to acceptance 10 months

2013

11/13/14

Journal of Health Economics

Accepted

7

1

1

Couldn;t get second referee so editor said he read carefully himself. Explains longish time to first review.

2013

05/22/14

Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

one positive one negative, editor chose to reject.

2015

03/30/16

Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

Only one report but good comments.

2014

02/24/15

Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Reviewers' concerns are reasonable but they didn't provide helpful suggestions

2015

03/29/16

Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

2013

06/20/13

Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

2013

09/24/13

Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Pretty efficient turnaround. One extremely thorough and helpful report, one shorter but still raising valid points. All the points are addressable so I would've liked an RR but I'm not part of the club so I can't complain. Overall a good experience that will help the paper!

2016

08/01/16

Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

4

1

3

two positive reports and one strongly negative report; the editor Andrew Street gave me a R&R; after I spent one month writing a 30-page response, the negative referee still argued against my paper based on his misunderstanding of my paper; the editor finally chose to reject my paper based on the comments of this referee without careful reading

2017

11/13/17

Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

Decent reports. Recommended to try other health journals.

2017

04/28/18

Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Short unhelpful referee reports which ask to cite referees. Editor sat on completed reports for 3 months before making a decision.

2014

08/16/15

Journal of Health Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Not very helpful comments

2015

09/02/15

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Culter said that there was backlog at JHE. 2 months for desk rejection is awkward.

2014

03/13/15

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2012

01/23/13

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2014

03/12/15

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

About 3 weeks turnaround. Comments just so-so. Just didn't seem to believe paper, but without any really good reason.

2013

12/30/13

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Following a previous piece of info: Desk rejected by another editor after almost 2 months, looking at the reason for rejecting the paper I had the feeling the editor did not read the paper.

2014

12/18/14

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

01/10/13

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

09/06/13

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Editor was Andrew Street. Pretty stupid rationale based on lack of methodological innovation. Who knew that JHE was trying to be Econometrica.

2017

10/09/17

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

It took almost two month for a desk reject. Such a waste of my valuable time. The editor, Andrew Street, is not even qualified judging from his crap publications. I will never submit to this journal.

2015

03/12/15

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Avoid this journal by any means. The editors are public health monkeys. They know nothing about economics and make stupid comments on my papers. I had much better experience in American Journal of Health Economics.

2015

03/12/15

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject after few days with some useful suggestions.

2013

05/09/13

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Very slow and no much reason given for desk rejection

2013

11/26/13

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Desk rejected by Nigel Rice after almost 2 months, looking at the reason for rejecting the paper I had the feeling the editor did not read the paper.

2014

12/18/14

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in 2 weeks. Editor (frank) did not read the paper and wrote 2 lines arguing that there were many papers addressing similar question (which was not entirely true). No discussion on the ID strategy, nor the novelty of the data.

2014

02/25/15

Journal of Health Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Single line rejection.

2015

12/14/16

Journal of Housing Economics

Accepted

3

1

2

excellent editor

2013

04/22/14

Journal of Housing Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

Was rejected today by editor as only 1/2 referee reports submitted. The report I did get back (in the form of an email from the editor) was not very informative (referee claimed "expressing time series as deviations from trend does not produce a stationary time series". I stopped reading after that).

2017

02/23/18

Journal of Housing Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Thanks for nothing, A. Saiz

2014

03/25/14

Journal of Human Capital

Pending

13

N/A

1

.

2011

12/21/12

Journal of Human Capital

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

2011

12/21/12

Journal of Human Capital

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

1 1/2 months to desk reject with minimally helpful comments. Not a great experience!

2018

11/07/18

Journal of Human Resources

Pending

4

N/A

2

2008

12/21/12

Journal of Human Resources

Pending

2

N/A

1

Currently in R&R. Editor was our de facto 2nd referee.

2016

11/12/16

Journal of Human Resources

Accepted

2

2

2

very good experience...fast and helpful comments from the co-editor and two referees...Average time between the submission and response is about 1.5 months

2016

11/27/16

Journal of Human Resources

Accepted

3

3

2

Very good referee reports. Constructive and helpful comments from the co-editor.

2014

10/17/15

Journal of Human Resources

Accepted

3

1

3

well run journal. RR time was only 2 weeks, no bullshit nitpicking

2013

04/29/13

Journal of Human Resources

Accepted

2

3

2

Extremely efficient. Good reports with decent suggestions.

2012

04/17/14

Journal of Human Resources

Accepted

2

N/A

2

Two straightforward reports calling for revision. Accepted 1 1/2 weeks after revision was submitted. No BS, great experience!

2015

08/02/15

Journal of Human Resources

Accepted

3

4

2

This was back when Bill Evans was editor. He gives good comments, but he doesn't mince words.

2009

04/08/13

Journal of Human Resources

Accepted

4

3

2

One very good referee report, one useless one. The editor read the paper in great details and added a lot of comments to the referees'.

2015

05/19/17

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

Rejected on the basis of wrong comments. The editor did not even get that the comments were wrong.

2016

08/02/16

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

2016

08/02/16

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2011

12/21/12

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

7

N/A

3

Slow turnover. Average Report.

2017

05/08/18

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

3

N/A

0

One positive report, one negative, editor's reject decision. Negative report is pretty bad. Some useful comments, most misreads and poor understanding of model.

2014

02/26/15

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Awesome experience. Both referees really spent time on the paper and gave lots of suggestions.So did the editor.

2014

08/17/14

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

One positive report, one negative. Very kind letter from the editor. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay.

2017

01/04/18

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

We studied the causal impact of X on some new Y. Reports were not very helpful. One referee commented that we didn't make a methodological contribution and asked why economists should care about Y. The other referee was concerned about the limitations of the identification strategy, but the same strategy has been used in other studies (some are in top field journals).

2016

10/11/16

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

One positive report, one negative. Very kind letter from the editor. Disappointed with the result, but the experience was okay.

2017

01/04/18

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

While I was disappointed to be rejected, I was extremely pleased with the professionalism of the journal. I had notice that it was sent to reviewers in

2017

12/05/17

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

I love this journal. Two fantastic referee reports within 1.5 months. Valid rejection.

2015

01/06/16

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2011

12/21/12

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

solid referee reports, fair editor

2013

05/29/13

Journal of Human Resources

Ref Reject

7

N/A

3

The editor was Christian Pop-Eliches. Pretty useless referee reports. Almost zero substantive comments on the technical part and not surprising that it was sloppy handling given that it was Pop-Eliches who was the co-editor.

2017

08/11/17

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

not broad enough, it seems that JHR considers themselves as a general interest journal.

2014

06/19/14

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

very sad

2013

02/20/13

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Suggests a field journal. Fast and fair enough.

2014

02/08/15

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Editor finds it interesting but not enough for a "general journal". Suggests a field journal. Fast and fair enough.

2014

02/08/15

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desh rejected in less than a week. Great comments from editor.

2013

04/23/13

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick reject, saying go to field.

2016

07/27/16

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick desk reject, apparently considers itself a GI journal now (?)

2015

08/16/15

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

The editor said that enjoyed the paper very much but the contributon is not sufficiently broad for a general interest journal as JHR and fits better into a labour journal. Very fast. I didn't know that JHR is a general interest journal!

2015

05/06/15

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/31/12

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

2011

01/02/13

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

In three days. referred to field journal

2016

07/14/16

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Devreaux desk reject. No comments.

2014

04/09/14

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in 24hrs with a clear and useful message from the editor(David Figlio). In terms of rejections this is probably as good as it gets.

Desk reject within a few days. Apparently JHE considers itself general interest. No comments, but very fast.

2013

03/17/14

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

desk rejected in a week. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable comment...very well run journal, fast and no submission fee! will definitely try it again next time

2016

11/27/16

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Less than insightful comments by an editor clearly hastily read the paper. Fast but shallow.

2017

08/13/17

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject within 14 hours(!!!). Comments weren't helpful, but at least they didn't waste my time. Feel a bit short-changed, but it was quick at least.

2016

08/30/16

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

3 weeks for a desk reject...and they keep the $100.

2018

05/28/18

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

desk rejected in a week. the editor roughly read the whole paper and point out a valuable comment...very well run journal, fast and no submission fee! will definitely try it again next time

2016

11/27/16

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

your paper, after some updating to reflect the recent complementary literature, would be more appropriate for a more specialized journal

2015

06/09/15

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected after a bit more than two weeks without comment. $100 fee refunded

2017

09/04/18

Journal of Human Resources

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Industrial Economics

Pending

6

5

2

Referees' comments were useful. paper is short so 6 months for each round is very long. Bar-Isaak is the editor in charge (much better than others like nocke). professional.

2013

12/25/15

Journal of Industrial Economics

Accepted

3

2

0

3 months to R&R, accepted after 1 round of revision. R&R was helpful.

2012

02/28/13

Journal of Industrial Economics

Accepted

4

3

2

Alessandro Gavazza was the editor and excellent. Tough but fair referee reports. Rigor of the paper increased greatly because of the refereeing process.

2015

12/26/16

Journal of Industrial Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Two decent referee reports. Good reasons for rejection; comments improved paper for next submission.

2017

01/11/18

Journal of Industrial Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

2011

01/29/13

Journal of Industrial Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2012

02/15/13

Journal of Industrial Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

weird referee, probably a grad student

2012

02/27/13

Journal of Industrial Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2011

08/02/13

Journal of Industrial Economics

Ref Reject

12

N/A

1

slow but fair

2013

01/19/17

Journal of Industrial Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

awful report...referee asked "why is this a problem?"

2012

03/06/13

Journal of Industrial Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

One referee reports is only 2 short paragraphs long and completely wrong. The referee is clearly not up to the task. The second one is ok, but rejects for some peculiar reasons.

2015

01/13/16

Journal of Industrial Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

14 days. Some nice words from the editor.

2017

01/17/18

Journal of Industrial Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

To be honest, I had a hard time understanding exactly what the point of your paper is. As best I can tell, the purpose is to use a particular modeling framework to illustrate that a trade policies defined in terms of 'import-export' quotas cannot yield a Nash equilibrium of the trade game. In any case, the paper is not a good match for the JIE, both because it is highly technical and (more importantly) because it is more of a trade theory paper than an IO paper.

2014

08/22/14

Journal of Industrial Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

8 days for a desk rejection. The Editor mentioned that the paper is outside the scope of the Journal. He suggested a general interest journal.

2016

10/21/16

Journal of Industrial Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/29/13

Journal of Industrial Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Very inefficient desk!

2012

06/03/13

Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade

Accepted

3

4

1

2014

04/27/15

Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Referee just pointed put

2012

01/04/13

Journal of Industry, Competition, and Trade

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

05/03/13

Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Ok referee reports. Editor was a bit harsh.

2014

01/29/15

Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

11

N/A

2

2017

01/16/18

Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Very good reports even though the paper was rejected.

2013

04/17/14

Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

14

N/A

0

2014

05/19/15

Journal of Institutional Economics

Accepted

2

1

2

Very good experience. Had 2 tough but fair r&r rounds with 2 reviewers and 1 with the editor. Good turnaround time. The editor is responsive. The process had only one negative side; the reviewers implicitly asked to cite their works.

2016

06/21/17

Journal of Institutional Economics

Accepted

2

2

2

Split reports but very clear advice from editor. Quick turnaround upon revision.

2013

01/29/15

Journal of Institutional Economics

Accepted

2

2

2

Very efficient process. 1 short report (but good points) and 1 very long report. After the second round R&R, I only had to deal with the long reviewer. Overall good experience.

2013

01/28/15

Journal of Institutional Economics

Accepted

2

1

3

Incredibly tough process with three rounds of revisions - first round ended up me writing a response as long as the original paper. Second round was down to one ref and editor, third round was just editor. Despite being so tough, all comments were fair and refs wrote great reports that dramatically improved the paper.

2016

07/22/16

Journal of Institutional Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2012

01/18/13

Journal of Institutional Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

14 days. Some nice words from the editor.

2017

01/17/18

Journal of International Development

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Very slow and the reason for rejection was not good enough.

2015

03/20/15

Journal of International Development

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

editor said the paper had too much economics

2012

04/27/13

Journal of International Economics

Accepted

7

3

4

The editor was very helpful to summarize what he thought should be done from 4 referee reports

2014

09/27/16

Journal of International Economics

Accepted

2

5

2

Reports have very clear constructive instructions and fast response.

2015

04/20/16

Journal of International Economics

Accepted

3

1

2

Good experience. Editor (Taylor) gave additional advice. We tried to do everything we were asked to and also had a major overhaul of the data. Outright accept after first resubmission still came as a surprise given JIE typically has 2-3 rounds.

2014

05/03/15

Journal of International Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2010

08/02/13

Journal of International Economics

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

2013

06/01/14

Journal of International Economics

Ref Reject

13

11

1

The WORST experience of my rather long life. An incompetent referee and an editor that could not care less of how slow the process was: a lethal combo

Quick decision, with some useful comments in the reports. Overall good experience

2015

04/05/17

Journal of International Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2015

05/07/15

Journal of International Economics

Ref Reject

3

3

2

Fair decision, referee reports pointed out major flaw but hardly in a way that could be called constructive

2015

01/18/16

Journal of International Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

One useless report, and one very useful report. Editor was somewhat biased in judging the contribution of the paper. His own comments were not based on the reports. Probably he sent the paper to referees because he couldn't desk reject it, but his mind was made-up before hand.

2016

03/16/17

Journal of International Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

ref report was ok

2011

01/19/13

Journal of International Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Low quality referee reports. One seems to be written by a first-year bachelor student. Waste of time.

I have been waiting for more than a year since submission. The editor does not respond to emails.

2016

09/29/17

Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money

Pending

18

12

0

Had to withdraw after waiting for nearly a year and a half.

2016

10/20/17

Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money

Accepted

4

N/A

0

My paper was transferred after rejected from a higher ranked journal. The editor satisfied the reply to the original referee reports and accepted it in 4 months. Note that since the editor(Batten) is handling many different journals at the same time, you should expect relatively slow turnaround time.

Poor experience, will not submit again. 7 months waiting for one poor referee report rejecting the paper for an unwarranted wording issue.

2017

12/12/17

Journal of International Money and Finance

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

Horrible experience. Over half a year for response from one referee who a) had no problems with the methodology, b) liked the writing, and c) thought it had a novel contribution. Recommended reject because he thought the sample of countries wasn't broad enough (despite it being a paper on a specific set of countries on purpose, as explained in the methodology). One paragraph that dismissed four years of work. Editor then agreed. Will never submit here again.

2014

01/16/15

Journal of International Money and Finance

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

My paper was in "submitted" status for almost 5 months when made a query. The response was I forgot to pay the submission fee. However, I did pay and forward teh receipt as evidence. JIMF appologizes (ok but you should have send a warning if JIMF think payment is pending...). Still, I have to contact them again after 9 weeks because they did nothing with my paper. After this thrid email, the paper moves up and it takes 11 weeks to get referee rejection (quality fo the two reports: poor, they wont improve my paper). Very bad experience, I have lost more than 9 months and it costs USD250.

Poor reports. One referee was OK with almost no comments. Second one didn't understand the paper and said it was already written. Editors are not reading referee reports.

2015

01/15/16

Journal of International Money and Finance

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

Bad experience, there was a long wait of mroe than 10 months to get 2 referee reports that did not like the the paper (but not so sure why). Each report was less than 600 words long with 3-4 main comments but not in much dept (not even full references included). To get rejected in a good journal, that is ok since it is part of the business but waiting 10 moths for refereee reports of that quality was a really bad deal.

2013

08/28/14

Journal of International Money and Finance

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

2012

01/19/13

Journal of International Money and Finance

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

1 report suggesting to cite the Editor's work and speaking about things outside of the scope of the paper. Editor rejected without comments. Sad experience not for the first time with this journal.

desk reject after three months... editor claimed they did not publish papers on this topic but they bogh b

2011

12/24/12

Journal of Legal Studies

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

Took 7 months to get one referee report. The report had a few good notes but none that really seemed to disqualify the paper from getting an R&R. Seems largely like the referee just didn't like it and the editor wanted there to be more significant results (publication bias at its best)

2015

08/02/16

Journal of Macroeconomics

Accepted

2

2

2

Very efficient process. Two excellent referee reports.

2016

11/25/16

Journal of Macroeconomics

Accepted

3

1

2

Useful reports and fast turnaround. Very pleased.

2018

06/14/18

Journal of Macroeconomics

Accepted

4

4

1

2014

06/30/15

Journal of Macroeconomics

Accepted

6

1

1

2014

02/25/15

Journal of Macroeconomics

Accepted

2

1

1

Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Very quick and professional editing. Great experience!

2012

11/19/13

Journal of Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Fair enough.

2013

10/26/13

Journal of Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Two ref reports in 8 days. It seems they rushed to reject it. Reports are not great.

2014

07/24/14

Journal of Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

Incredible experience: one of the referee report told us that a working paper was published on almost the same subject (and justifies our rejection)... but this working paper was published 5 months after our submission !

2012

10/24/13

Journal of Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

0

Very bad referee reports

2012

01/14/14

Journal of Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

1

This is the letter I sent to the editor of JME:

2013

05/28/14

Journal of Macroeconomics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Reject. Report very critical but useful nonetheless.

2014

12/24/14

Journal of Macroeconomics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor was insufficient in evaluating our paper and rejected it due to a paper cited in the reference list! His reports were completely crap. Crappy journal with crappy editor.

2016

05/22/17

Journal of Macroeconomics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rejected within one day. The editor VanHoose made some good comments though.

2017

12/23/17

Journal of Macroeconomics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2016

05/22/17

Journal of Mathematical Economics

Accepted

3

1

1

Referee really helped me to improve this paper with a great report. Editor didn't waste any time on accepting after first revision.

2011

03/01/13

Journal of Mathematical Economics

Accepted

4

2

3

It took 4 months to get the reviews, but the reviews were excellent. The three reviewers really went through the proof, I was a little impressed by their comments. The final version of the proof was more elegant as a result, I am very appreciative of the reviewers and the editor. There are some great papers in the journal; I would think it would get a higher impact factor.

2014

11/27/16

Journal of Mathematical Economics

Accepted

4

2

2

2010

11/17/13

Journal of Mathematical Economics

Ref Reject

3

3

3

Very useful referee reports.

2014

07/27/14

Journal of Mathematical Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

1 week.

2015

08/21/17

Journal of Mathematical Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Result are standard and no enough novelty!

2015

08/17/15

Journal of Monetary Economics

Pending

0

N/A

0

Emailed journal to withdraw submission after 14 months. Heard nothing and received no replies to my emails

2012

06/10/13

Journal of Monetary Economics

Pending

0

N/A

0

Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. I withdrew the paper. Submission is waste of time.

2014

03/10/15

Journal of Monetary Economics

Pending

0

N/A

0

Reviews were completed soon but the editors did not send them to me, nor did they respond to queries. I withdrew the paper. Submission is waste of time.

2014

03/10/15

Journal of Monetary Economics

Pending

22

N/A

0

2011

01/22/13

Journal of Monetary Economics

Pending

4

N/A

1

2018

10/06/18

Journal of Monetary Economics

Pending

8

N/A

0

Reports submitted within one month. Going into the ninth month with no response. When do I give up?

2014

03/11/15

Journal of Monetary Economics

Accepted

8

N/A

1

Best experience in my long career (20+ years, 10+ top publications). Editor (Reis) worked hard on paper to make it better. Rare experience where every round made paper much better.

2014

08/18/16

Journal of Monetary Economics

Accepted

18

3

1

It takes the editor a long time to respond but the comments are very helpful. It is a very demanding R&R and we revise the paper a lot according to the suggestions, but it is worthwhile. Not only is it accepted, but it also becomes a much better paper now.

2012

07/18/15

Journal of Monetary Economics

Accepted

11

5

1

2012

06/21/14

Journal of Monetary Economics

Accepted

9

12

2

Good handling by the editor (Reis). Very useful comments. Ended up being a better paper.

2015

08/02/18

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Relatively quickly/decent referee report

2013

01/22/15

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

36

10

1

2008

12/20/12

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Was actually scared based off of runors I heard on this site. While the ref rejection runied my day, I must conclude that the process was very efficient and the editors/refs earned every penny of the submission fee based on the feedback I received

2015

04/19/16

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

Actually, not as bad as many people think.Reports by referee and AE were of little help (they raised a few valid points), but this can happen at any other journal too.

2012

04/07/13

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

I was worried about the wait, but in the end got a very good editorial letter (from Reis) with great suggestions. Followed up on them, sent it to another journal, and got accepted very quickly. Submitting to JME first was really worth it.

2015

05/12/16

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

referee should go back to primary school

2015

04/25/16

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

2012

05/29/14

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

1

Very weak report. Basically useless, a waste of time.

2016

08/31/17

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

Very good set of comments from Ricardo Reis.

2017

06/05/17

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

0

2011

03/13/13

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

2011

12/21/12

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

18

N/A

1

OK comments from referee. Referee report was ready within a month after submission. Referee didn't think the contribution is significant enough, so straight reject. New editor apologized for the delay and handled the rejection quickly.

2016

08/02/18

Journal of Monetary Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Good comments, fast turnaround

2016

05/17/16

Journal of Monetary Economics

Desk Reject

15

N/A

0

Desk reject after 15 months...

2017

04/28/18

Journal of Monetary Economics

Desk Reject

26

N/A

0

2 years no reply, then short letter and reject, I would never send there again

2015

08/16/17

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Pending

4

N/A

1

it was in 2016. Pok Sang Lam rejected with few comments. Referee did clearly said that the main mechanism is not compelling but did not give a single word on why our argument is persuasive or what else we could do to improve.

2015

03/22/16

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Pending

6

N/A

2

Helpful comments. R&R we need to improve the paper a lot before resubmission.

2016

11/13/16

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Accepted

11

3

2

2011

01/04/13

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Accepted

6

5

3

Very good referee reports.

2011

04/06/13

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Accepted

3

4

2

Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. Improved the paper significantly.

2013

03/22/15

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Accepted

3

5

2

Very constructive comments from Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) and referees. Improved the paper significantly.

2012

02/01/15

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

A bit slow, but kindly acknowledged by the editor. One very good and helpful report.

2011

03/08/13

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

Good referee reports, but slow

2016

06/28/17

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

2011

12/22/12

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

9

N/A

1

Single report. Poor, self serving. Says model's too complex then suggests an addition which would have tripled the state space. Lots of puffed up explanation marks and faux outrage. Self serving nonsense, Editor (Pok-Sang LAM) parroted what was said in the report. Expected a lot better from this journal.

2018

09/04/18

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

12

N/A

1

1 referee report after 1 year, referee did not like the idea, editor Pok-sang Lam

2016

08/30/17

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

3

N/A

0

2 referee reports: 1 so-so and 1 extremely shitty. The shitty one referred to multiple papers in very low ranked journals authored by the same set of authors. Upon inspection these papers are only superficially related. Maybe the paper did not merit publication in JMCB but that referee report was really ridiculous.

2014

10/03/14

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Very efficient editorial process by Ken West. One very good report, another one heavily biased against methodology, yet helpful.

2011

03/08/13

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Ken West was the editor

2014

09/07/14

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

13

N/A

2

13 months to a referee reject, supposedly two reports summarized in one paragraph sent in a letter from the editor. None of the criticism was fatal and most was stylistic. I expected better from this journal.

2015

01/17/17

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

2013

03/18/14

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Very weak reports. Really unfortunate waste of time.

2018

10/11/18

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

One referee report was very detailed. The other report also helped in improving the paper.

Referee seemed have read just the abstract. And he did not find the topic interesting.

2014

04/29/15

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

Rejected by the editor after relatively good report. Useful and professional referee report . Overall good experience.

2018

07/03/18

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

15

N/A

1

Amateur night in Dixie

2016

03/06/18

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

very efficient editing service

2017

08/04/17

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

1 really good RR, 1 okay RR

2015

03/28/16

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

6 weeks for a desk rejection.

2016

11/03/16

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

two weeks for a desk rejection, with a 50 percent refunds of the submission fee.

2018

09/08/18

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Very fast reject and they sent my check back

2010

08/02/13

Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2011

01/12/13

Journal of Multinational Financial Management

Accepted

2

1

2

Two referee reports. One very thorough that discussed on every paper point.Good experience

2016

10/28/16

Journal of Pension Economics and Finance

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Bad experience. The editor failed to find reviewers and decided to reject it after 10 weeks with no good reason

2015

03/27/15

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Ref Reject

1

N/A

3

Overall, pretty speedy given my submission coincided with end of year grading season and winter holidays in the US. It took 2.5 months from initial submission to receiving three OK reviews. 1 R was for R&R, another for weak R&R, another for reject. Ultimately, Editor rejected as felt it was not general purpose enough. He gave thoughtful comments about how to better target elsewhere. Will submit again in the future!

2017

04/25/18

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Ref Reject

3

N/A

0

2015

08/23/15

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in two days due to relevance

2014

12/12/14

Journal of Policy Modeling

Pending

2

12

0

R&R in two months. Submitted the revision, and they NEVER got back to me. They ignored all my emails and I had to pull out after more than a year.

2012

06/21/14

Journal of Policy Modeling

Pending

6

N/A

0

2015

09/19/15

Journal of Policy Modeling

Pending

0

N/A

0

17 months and counting...

2014

11/28/15

Journal of Policy Modeling

Accepted

12

12

0

It took 18 months after first revision. Worst experience

2012

05/07/15

Journal of Policy Modeling

Accepted

3

3

4

Very good journal, with reactive editorial assistant (Sabah Cavalo), and very good and constructive comments.

2015

12/14/15

Journal of Policy Modeling

Accepted

10

11

0

The editor talked about 4 ref reports. We saw none. Will never try it again.

2012

05/08/15

Journal of Policy Modeling

Ref Reject

12

N/A

4

Worse experience ever. The editor rejected after 12 months mentioning 4 referee reports. We asked to see the reports but the editor did not send them.

2016

11/23/17

Journal of Policy Reform

Accepted

1

1

2

Actually Journal of Economic Policy Reform. Good experience, good editor, great referees that really put me through my paces but helped deliver a better paper.

2016

03/23/17

Journal of Political Economy

Pending

20

N/A

0

Repeated enquiries ("hey, it´s been a year now") have been followed by profuse apologies. Currently 20 months of waiting after first submission. No reply yet. But we are still hopeful.

2011

01/06/13

Journal of Political Economy

Pending

3

N/A

5

Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision.

2016

03/03/17

Journal of Political Economy

Pending

3

N/A

5

Very good reports and editor was clear about what were most important points to improve in the revision.

2016

03/03/17

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

Editor: Heckman; high quality reports, two of the reports were helpful and constructive

2014

12/05/14

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Fair decision, editor made call before 3rd referee responded

2016

06/02/18

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

no longer a serious all purpose journal imho; "desk reject" after 6 mos on the basis of style in the abstract

2009

01/12/13

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

Three reports, all of high quality, within 2 months. Very constructive and useful for revisions. They took the paper seriously.

2014

07/17/14

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

13

N/A

3

2011

12/20/12

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

4

2013

12/06/13

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

After 6 months I got three good reports. One positive (R&R) and other two had valid concerns I could have clarified better ex-ante.

2017

01/10/18

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

18

N/A

2

One of the referee reports was of alarmingly low quality.

2010

01/07/13

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2015

02/28/18

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Heckman handled paper. Faster than I expected given horror stories i have heard here and elsewhere, and with good comments from refs and editor.

2013

05/31/13

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

11

N/A

2

Very slow process.

2015

11/17/16

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Seemed a decent process to me

2009

01/29/13

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Quick turnaround and fair decision, but reviewers seemed somewhat of a mismatch for paper

2017

06/02/18

Journal of Political Economy

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

One very very positive ref report, the other one was short and against, the editor gave us many comments but rejected at the end

2013

05/28/14

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

3 months for a desk rejection - no need to comment...

2012

01/07/13

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

4

N/A

0

4 months until desk reject. Editor was apologetic regarding delay, but his comments were not especially informative.

2015

01/08/16

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Report from the Editor. Very helpful comments.

2016

11/23/16

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book

2016

02/07/17

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2013

11/01/13

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

8

N/A

0

8 months desk rejection!

2015

08/07/16

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Desk rejected thoughtelessly with curious comment paper read more like a book

2016

02/07/17

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Despite perceptions they do desk reject. Editor looked at it as did a colleague of the editor. Told not a fit.

2013

10/23/13

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject within two weeks. Encouraging and polite comments from editor. Not enough of a contribution for JPE, suggested AEJs.

2016

10/12/16

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2015

07/08/17

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2010

12/20/12

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

8

N/A

0

8 month desk reject with no reports--JPE is dead to me

2014

02/16/15

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2016 submission. 7 days

2015

04/19/16

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick rejection (12 days), with nice words and other journal recommendations from the editor

2015

04/20/16

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in 7 days. Editor clearly read the paper, sent a long email telling me how much he liked it but that it would likely run into trouble with referees. He had nothing but praise for it and offered good suggestions. Overall a very nice experience.

2016

10/21/16

Journal of Political Economy

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

with a report written by the editor

2016

12/09/17

Journal of Population Economics

Accepted

3

3

2

Good experience. Two useful ref reports in the first round. A second round of minor revision was requested. Editor is a little slow. Took altogether 8 months to acceptance.

2015

12/17/15

Journal of Population Economics

Accepted

3

2

3

Smooth process.

2015

01/16/16

Journal of Population Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

So-so experience. Editor said there are two reports but I only received one. The reports point out some concerns that are not difficult to fix. However, the quality of the report is very high and it helps improve the paper a lot. Generally not 5-star experience but worth submitting there if your paper is relevant.

Three reports, two reports are with doable suggestions, one is low-quality. The editor rejects the paper and I think it is fair, but I do see that the paper can be improved based on these reports.

2017

01/18/18

Journal of Population Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2016

01/17/17

Journal of Population Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor proposed to submit it to IZA Journal of Labor Economics

2015

11/01/15

Journal of Population Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected within 2 days. Editor was polite. No comments about the paper itself.

2018

03/21/18

Journal of Population Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2009

01/07/13

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Nice communication with the Editor, but the referre report was terse with only one and brief idea.

2013

01/29/14

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

0

Incredibly insulting rejection that made it clear the referee had not read past the first 2 pages of the paper. Due to a "typographical error" in sending me an email, I had to wait an extra month (and after I emailed asking for a status update) to learn of the rejection - wasting time I could have spent submitting it to another journal.

2013

10/05/13

Journal of Productivity Analysis

Pending

6

N/A

3

2012

02/15/13

Journal of Productivity Analysis

Accepted

8

8

2

Two reports -- one good (mostly cosmetic changes), one very short. Process was too long given that only minor changes were required on R&R.

2014

10/22/15

Journal of Productivity Analysis

Accepted

8

6

2

2013

06/14/15

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Pending

0

N/A

0

Submitted in April, still waiting

2012

01/08/13

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Pending

0

N/A

0

2012

02/10/13

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Accepted

5

5

2

2006

08/02/13

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Accepted

7

7

2

Referees asked for useless extensions and took more than six months in each round.

2014

12/25/15

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Accepted

3

2

2

Overall positive experience. One high quality report. One very low quality and unfriendly report.

2013

10/31/15

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

Editor was kindly respond my email after 6 months, informed me that referees did not respond even after emailing them. At the end, I got two reports; one helpful, the other garbage.

2016

03/07/17

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Ref Reject

9

N/A

1

Terrible experience.

2014

03/21/15

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

Very late and vague one page referee report, rejection based on perceived bad fit with journal. Was not worth waiting that long (this is an understatement...)

2015

12/30/15

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Ref Reject

5

N/A

0

1 good referee, 1 weird referee

2012

07/15/13

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Ref Reject

11

N/A

0

Terrible experience overall.

2012

04/27/14

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Paid $100 to read "that the Journal of Public Economics can only accept about 10 percent of the submissions for publication."

2015

08/16/15

Journal of Public Economic Theory

Desk Reject

5

N/A

0

5 months for a desk reject! I don't know what to add.

2014

09/28/14

Journal of Public Economics

Pending

0

N/A

0

2016

11/08/16

Journal of Public Economics

Pending

2

N/A

3

2 good reports, one blah

2014

09/15/15

Journal of Public Economics

Pending

2

N/A

0

Fast response. Excellent referee reports and detailed feedback from the editor on what to focus on and what to ignore. My new favorite journal

2017

02/23/18

Journal of Public Economics

Accepted

3

3

2

Very Detailed construtive reports. Short turn around time.

2014

03/30/15

Journal of Public Economics

Accepted

8

2

2

good reports, but so slow.

2016

12/27/17

Journal of Public Economics

Accepted

4

4

2

2013

11/10/13

Journal of Public Economics

Accepted

5

3

2

Two thoughtful reports

2012

05/29/18

Journal of Public Economics

Accepted

4

1

2

Very clear instructions from editor for revision

2017

06/02/18

Journal of Public Economics

Accepted

6

2

2

2013

11/18/14

Journal of Public Economics

Accepted

3

1

2

Good referee reports. Jim Andreoni was an excellent editor. He saw we addressed the points, and accepted the paper himself without going back to reviewers although comments were substantial.

2012

11/28/13

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

3

Excellent experience. Total turn around time was about 40 days. 3 detailed reports, and a summary from Hendren explaining the rejection. Good overall experience.

2018

07/15/18

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

Bad experience. Very long time for first response. Reports only partly helpful.

2016

10/25/16

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2 referees seemed positive about the paper. Editor rejected.

2016

07/11/16

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

One bad/objectively false report, one useful report

2011

04/04/13

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2011

01/03/13

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Very low quality reports!

2017

06/15/17

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

8

7

2

It is ridiculous how much time the referees take to submit their reports.

Polite, even quite positive reports. Nothing that could not be fixed in 2 days, still reject. Seems like being rejected in virtue of the magnificence of the journal

2014

12/01/14

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

One garbage report, one useful

2016

05/07/17

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Good reports, good time to decision

2015

12/13/15

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

One useful report, one useless

2013

04/09/14

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2013

09/11/13

Journal of Public Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

constructive reports, editor had read the paper and gave additional comments

2018

09/22/18

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

desk rejection in 2 weeks. other outlets are suggested.

2016

05/05/16

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Very polite desk rejection. Suggested some other journals.

2017

11/15/17

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

fast

2013

01/08/14

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2010

01/09/13

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2010

04/15/13

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2010

12/20/12

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

06/03/13

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Very helpful and polite rejection

2013

02/13/13

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

recommend to send to some other theory journals but those theory journals have said I should send to this journal.

2015

10/12/15

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in 10 days. Suggested a top field journal! did not refund the submission fee.

2016

06/02/16

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2014

09/30/14

Journal of Public Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Standard generic letter from the editor

2016

02/03/17

Journal of Public Policy

Pending

0

N/A

0

the comment above was for another journals. Mod's pls delete it.

2014

09/12/14

Journal of Public Policy

Pending

0

N/A

0

submitted half a year ago. editorial team do not respond to email. had to withdraw

2014

09/12/14

Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics

Accepted

2

1

2

Quick turnaround and impressive referee reports

2016

07/21/17

Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

Terrible report. Never submit to this journal again.

2014

04/02/15

Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

There is only one report called review number 2! The referee suggested a wrong point as the problem but didn't suggest rejection. Editor rejected based on that. Complete waste of time!!

2014

04/02/15

Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

desk reject in 2 weeks

2016

10/13/16

Journal of Real Estate Research

Accepted

3

2

4

Two referee reports were really good. Pleasantly surprised by the quality of referee report.

2012

04/22/14

Journal of Real Estate Research

Accepted

3

3

3

2011

12/23/12

Journal of Regional Science

Accepted

3

5

3

Editor (Partridge) was very helpful and was de facto a 4th referee.

2015

05/19/17

Journal of Regional Science

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

A nice formated letter saying that the topic was not interesting enough for the audience of the Journal.

2018

03/12/18

Journal of Regulatory Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2010

08/02/13

Journal of Regulatory Economics

Desk Reject

14

N/A

0

The worst experience I ever had in over 20 years. When we inquired after 6 month, we were told to be patient. After 14 month a desk rejection arrived. Nothing in the email suggested that anyone had actually read the paper. So there is zero feedback. If you want a fair treatment - stay away from this journal.

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)

Pending

3

N/A

2

2015

11/23/15

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)

Accepted

3

3

2

Accepted after two rounds of revisions. The referee reports were fairly good. Quick turnaround time for the first R&R, but very slow for the last round.

2015

08/02/18

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

superficial comment. main message was that paper is a poor fit. plus for a quick turnaround.

2016

01/30/17

Journal of Time Series Analysis

Accepted

3

3

3

They editors are very efficient. Nice experience

2018

11/12/18

Journal of Transport Economics and Policy

Pending

0

N/A

0

2015

06/15/16

Journal of Transport Economics and Policy

Accepted

7

12

1

Extremely slow...

2015

01/06/18

Journal of Transport Economics and Policy

Accepted

4

1

1

Good and efficient process

2014

06/18/15

Journal of Transport Economics and Policy

Ref Reject

10

N/A

2

2008

12/21/12

Journal of Urban Economics

Accepted

3

3

2

good reports, fast journal

2011

01/01/13

Journal of Urban Economics

Accepted

3

2

2

the editor is very nice, professional and efficient

2010

01/19/13

Journal of Urban Economics

Accepted

6

4

2

Strong editor gave us an R&R even though only one of the refs reccomended it. Editor also gave very detailed description of the necessary changes. Also gave a lengthy extension. Great experience!

2015

11/15/17

Journal of Urban Economics

Accepted

0

N/A

0

I am asked to send to another journal because the paper is not a good fit

2014

06/19/14

Journal of Urban Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Fast response time. Editor was great (helpful, insightful, truthful). Two referee reports: 1 seemed to miss basics of the paper and didn't provide useful insight/comments and the other was exhaustive, insightful, and useful moving forward. Reason for rejection was editor thought paper belonged in `less selective' journal.

2013

07/18/13

Journal of Urban Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Reports were not fair but at least fast response.

2014

10/23/14

Journal of Urban Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Editor was very nice, one of the referees completely misunderstood my paper and barely commented on it. The other referee was serious however.

2012

12/24/12

Journal of Urban Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Good comments from referee and editor after five months

2016

02/20/17

Journal of Urban Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

The referee reports were serious and offered some good suggestions, although one of the referees appeared not to understand the theoretical model used in the paper. Neither felt that the paper was a good fit for an urban journal.

2013

08/29/13

Journal of Urban Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Passed the desk (Turner) in ten days. One reviewer is helpful, another needs to retake econometrics course. Overall, not bad experience.

2017

03/15/18

Journal of Urban Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

reports show referees were serious. Sadly, no mention of why paper was rejected (only minor issues raised). Comments were helpful.

4 weeks for first response. Rejected based on 1 helpful referee report. Overall very good experience.

2016

05/26/16

Kyklos

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2014

10/06/16

Kyklos

Ref Reject

2

2

2

Fast editors. Rejected with two reports with fair remarks. Editor mentioned additional points and suggested a field journal as an alternative.

2016

02/19/17

Kyklos

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Fast and fair. One short and one longer report.

2017

06/08/17

Kyklos

Ref Reject

1

N/A

0

2011

12/20/12

Kyklos

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Editor referred to a report by a reviewer received by phone

2011

01/07/13

Kyklos

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

Desk/ref rejected. They said they could not find reviewers. Gave a quick explanation and said they did a thorough read of the paper. Letters from the Editor was nice. Might submit again, a little disappointed that they didn't try to get it reviewed.

2017

09/03/17

Kyklos

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Editors reject the paper. The decision is motivated by acceptable reasons and suggest potential alternative journals.

2013

01/17/14

Kyklos

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

Desk reject within a 10 day but editor provided a short 'referee' report mentioning five issues. Fair and quick process.

2016

10/25/16

Kyklos

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor gave a short summary of two sentences of the paper, mentioned three additional recent articles from the literature, and suggested an alternative journal. Desk reject took four days. Fast and fair.

2017

09/04/17

Kyklos

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected after 3 days. Editor gave a two sentence summary the paper, mentioned two additional recent articles from their journal that might be useful, and suggested an alternative journal. The reason for rejection was that my paper was too specific for their readers.

2018

03/25/18

Labour Economics

Accepted

6

8

2

Editor Ian Walker gave us a fantastic referee report. The two anonymous referees were surely competent even though they did not go in depth as the editor did. 1 R&R round. Re-submission took a week to be finally be accepted. Very good experience.

2012

09/21/13

Labour Economics

Accepted

2

1

2

Good process. Quick response with 2 good reports and clear editor comments. Quick acceptance after revision.

2016

01/02/17

Labour Economics

Ref Reject

3

3

2

Helpful comments from referees and relatively fast.

2015

09/22/15

Labour Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

Two revisions but rejected by editor, fast and fair comments

2017

12/12/17

Labour Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

2 decent reports. Way too slow though. My paper was not complicated and could have been rejected in 2-3 months easily.

2014

03/30/15

Labour Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

One accept with min comments, one said ok but many points/revisions, one reject, editor said too large a revision without guarantee for accept

one referee suggested revision, one rejection, editor followed the rejection; good reports, suggestions improved the paper

2017

04/06/18

Labour Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

A very similar paper came out a month after our paper got rejected, new paper's authors are closely tied to this journal.

2012

12/20/12

Labour Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

1 week for desk reject

2015

08/19/15

Labour Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2 months for desk rejection. Urghh.

2014

09/29/14

Labour Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Invited to submit for a special conference issue and then the editor desk rejected. The reason given was something along the lines of well we can't read everything. Complete garbage.

2015

09/23/15

Labour Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast response within one week. Editor recommended to submit to other journals. 100 USD for such VALUABLE suggestion.

2015

04/21/16

Labour Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Two weeks for a desk rejection. Garbage. Editor didn't read the paper.

2016

07/29/16

Labour Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

paper is bad and i feel bad

2016

11/02/16

Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations

Accepted

3

5

2

2013

03/06/18

Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial relations

Accepted

3

3

2

Efficient process.

2013

08/07/15

Land Economics

Accepted

3

N/A

2

Second round took 30 minutes, from submission to acceptance. Then took about 14 months to be come out in print.

2010

12/21/12

Land Economics

Accepted

4

3

2

two reports, comments not always very clear on what was wanted but still helpful. I will submit again

2013

03/13/15

Land Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

4 weeks to first response.

2015

05/05/16

Land Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Strange desk reject by editor, claiming methods weren't relevant to policy. This journal has published MANY papers using these methods and policy makers regularly fund these methods. Editor is losing it.

2015

04/08/16

Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington)

Accepted

8

3

2

2010

12/22/12

Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington)

Accepted

3

3

2

One of my best experiences. Referee reports are interesting and constructive. They clearly help the author to improve their paper instead of rejecting it without trying to extract the best. Highly recommended.

2014

06/13/15

Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington)

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

2 OK reports. At least they're quick

2012

03/14/13

Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington)

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

The referee asked for revision but Barnett or an AE rejected after I emailed them after 6 months. Currently under R&R at a journal with the same ranking. Considered waste of time here.

2017

09/26/18

Macroeconomic Dynamics (Washington)

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Was desk rejected in one day. At least it was fast I guess.

2016

01/24/18

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Accepted

6

4

2

Very good referee and associate editor report

2012

09/25/13

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Accepted

4

1

2

Fantastic experience (accepted first round)

2016

06/12/17

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Accepted

6

7

1

Two rounds of R&R. One referee with very helpful reports.

2014

11/29/15

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Accepted

1

1

0

Directly accepted within one month. Very fast

2018

03/27/18

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Accepted

5

3

2

A very pleasant experience after 5 rounds of really bad reviews. William A. Barnett is a very professional editor and reviews were helpful. The paper was accepted after I incorporated all suggestions in R&R. Will definitely send again.

2010

07/16/15

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Accepted

12

7

0

Unreasonably slow.

2012

02/25/15

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Accepted

3

2

2

Was initially more of a reject and resubmit, but the referee reports were extremely helpful and the AE gave essentially a third report. Very clear about what was needed for revision and the 2nd round was only minor comments. Very good experience overall.

2015

01/16/16

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Accepted

7

3

2

Two rounds of R&R. One referee report excellent. Second report little use. R&R process used the good referee who gave two further good reports - process 14 months total but useful.

2011

01/18/14

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Ref Reject

4

2

2

Bad reports (full of mistakes, pointed out to AE but didn't work)

2011

01/04/13

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Referee reports not particularly useful

2013

01/14/14

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Quite fast luckily. One referee was in favour of a strong R&R, the other recommended rejection on the basis of mathematical error, the AD seconded the latter. Needless to say, the error is not as such,

2013

01/09/14

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

01/17/13

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in 20 days

2014

11/20/14

Macroeconomics Dynamics (Cambridge)

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

complete waste of time

2017

02/20/18

Management Science

Accepted

2

1

3

Very quick!

2016

05/13/16

Management Science

Accepted

2

1

2

Quick

2013

05/15/13

Management Science

Accepted

3

2

2

Efficient and professional. Two rounds: less than three months in the first round and less than two months in the second round.

2015

05/24/16

Management Science

Accepted

2

1

3

Fast turn-around time and helpful referee reports. Happy with the whole process.

2016

03/01/17

Management Science

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Good report.

2012

02/08/13

Management Science

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Finance section. Barber was AE.

2011

12/28/12

Management Science

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

2012

02/06/13

Management Science

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Two reports: one insightful (R&R recommendation), the other recommended reject ("contribution is too small"). Letter from the editor not so much informative.

2016

07/29/16

Management Science

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Reject and resubmit although both referees and AE advised revision. DE claims to have too large acceptance rate. Largely fair points.

2017

06/10/17

Management Science

Desk Reject

1

N/A

1

Somewhat useful comments from Department Editor. Not so much from the Associate Editor.

2016

10/17/16

Management Science

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Not a good fit! Although the paper fits to one of their categories.

2015

06/08/15

Management Science

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast desk rejection, poor targeting on my part

2017

09/26/17

Management Science

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in 48 hours.

2017

06/14/17

Management Science

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

desk reject but with useful feedback from AE

2017

07/10/17

Management Science

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Not a fit to MS!

2015

01/14/16

Management Science

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Reasonable motivations for desk rejection provided

2015

04/30/15

Management Science

Desk Reject

3

3

4

Reject after R&R - department editor decided no fit though associate editor was more positive, did not even pass paper on to referees.

2016

10/06/17

Management Science

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Contribution too small. AE recommended another journal. Two weeks with very good (2 pages) report from AE. KG was DE in finance.

2018

09/13/18

Managerial and Decision Economics

Accepted

2

1

2

One very good set of comments. The other `meh'. Good experience.

2014

07/03/14

Managerial and Decision Economics

Accepted

3

2

1

Smooth process

2015

04/26/16

Managerial and Decision Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

The most idiotic referees I've ever seen. I guess I had the luck of being assigned to two business school types with absolutely no idea of the literature that my model belonged to. One stupid comment after another, tons of irrelevant references requested, and a complete lack on understanding of the model. Particularly, one of the referees seemed like he didn't read a single word past the intro. This journal still has the word economics in its tile, please stop asking clueless marketing types to referee!

2015

07/11/15

Marketing Science

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Several bizarre comments in reviews.

2015

05/16/16

Marketing Science

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Slow. Was not notified by the decision through email, found the decision in manuscript central during a random check.

2014

07/12/14

Marketing Science

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2014

11/07/14

Marketing Science

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2017

12/09/17

Marketing Science

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

48hr desk rejection with a weird comment from the editor; You did not address related marketing literature! The literature review was complete!

2015

06/02/15

Marketing Science

Desk Reject

0

1

0

Doesn't fit. At least quick.

2017

08/01/17

Mathematical Social Sciences

Accepted

6

2

2

2012

06/24/13

Mathematical Social Sciences

Accepted

3

2

1

2012

01/10/13

Mathematical Social Sciences

Accepted

7

3

2

A bit slow but overall a good experience. One of the referees helped me structure the paper nicely.

2017

05/19/18

Mathematical Social Sciences

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

Waste of time! never submit here again.

2014

05/25/15

Mathematical Social Sciences

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Although my manuscript wa based on stochastic processes, editor rejected it since they were not expert in applied econometrics. Miserable.

2015

07/09/16

National Tax Journal

Ref Reject

10

N/A

3

2017

03/19/18

New York Economic Review

Accepted

2

1

2

Quick turnaround, helpful comments, will submit again

2017

02/19/18

New York Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

Desk rejected in less than a week. Sent a specialized financial accounting paper. Rejected for not general interest, brief comments by editor and a "finance scholar". Can't really complain about the speed

2018

04/13/18

North American Journal of Economics and Finance

Accepted

3

2

2

extensive and helpful ref. report

2013

03/08/14

North American Journal of Economics and Finance

Accepted

2

1

2

Fast process and 2 helpful ref. reports. Overall, it was a good experience.

2015

05/28/16

Open Economies Review

Pending

3

N/A

2

Two referee reports, one engaged and constructive, the other written in incredibly poor English that took issue with some phrases I used. Interesting use of a referee's time.

2014

01/16/15

Open Economies Review

Accepted

3

2

2

2013

10/22/13

Open Economies Review

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Reports seemed to be of pretty good quality.

2014

03/27/15

Open Economies Review

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

Desk reject after 3 month. Too long

2011

11/08/13

Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics

Accepted

12

7

2

2010

11/01/15

Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics

Accepted

6

3

2

There was a second round of ref. reports, the reports were all nice an constructive

Ref reports of high quality, mention half a dozen suggestions for robustness which perhaps amounted to too much for the editor to let this go to revision. One of those cases where the paper though rejected improved significantly as a result.

2014

10/09/14

Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

10

N/A

1

2009

12/20/12

Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

High quality reports

2015

12/03/15

Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2 month for a desk rejection

2013

01/14/14

Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2013

12/20/12

Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

2014

09/17/14

Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

Desk rejection after three months, editor apologized for delay

2014

10/13/14

Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2014

03/18/14

Oxford Economic Papers

Pending

5

N/A

2

helpful comments

2013

02/10/14

Oxford Economic Papers

Accepted

3

3

2

2 quick rounds of R&R. Overall, a very good experience.

2014

01/27/16

Oxford Economic Papers

Accepted

5

4

2

2013

09/23/14

Oxford Economic Papers

Ref Reject

6

N/A

0

Poor referee reports

2013

01/14/14

Oxford Economic Papers

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Decent referee reports. Quick turnaround. Will submit again..

2014

01/24/15

Oxford Economic Papers

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

Very low process. Reports were split. Both reports were very shorts (one was just a few lines). No additional comment from the editor. Better to avoid.

2016

12/18/16

Oxford Economic Papers

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

2011

12/20/12

Oxford Economic Papers

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

Very disappointing experience. Waited 6 months for one report, from which it was clear that the referee hadn't even read the paper properly. Waste of time.

2014

06/02/15

Oxford Economic Papers

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Oxford Economic Papers

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected reasonably fast after 2 weeks to submission. No comments from the editor though. Weird decision as the paper was not far from being accepted at a better journal. Okay experience overall

2015

05/05/15

Oxford Economic Papers

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

02/22/13

Oxford Economic Papers

Desk Reject

3

N/A

2

2014

05/07/15

Pacific-Basin Finance Journal

Accepted

3

2

1

2014

01/28/17

Pacific-Basin Finance Journal

Accepted

1

1

1

quick turnaround and helpful referee report.

2017

10/26/17

Pacific-Basin Finance Journal

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Extensive and timely report by referee.

2015

05/22/15

Papers in Regional Science

Pending

2

N/A

2

two referee reports. Quite useful to provide further extensions

2017

12/07/17

Papers in Regional Science

Accepted

3

2

3

Fast processing and three excellent referees that helped to substantially improved the paper

2016

02/01/17

Policy Sciences

Accepted

4

4

3

Good experience. 2 rounds of R&R with three reviewers total (third reviewer brought in after the first round). Not much guidance from the editors, but they were supportive enough and managed the process well. The article went online first very quickly after acceptance, which was nice.

2017

05/07/18

Politics, Philosophy, & Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

14 days to desk reject, worthless generic email that said nothing on why it was rejected, merely that they "get lots of papers."

2016

07/16/16

Population and Development Review

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Took two months to desk reject, although initial email assured of a very short response time for desk rejecttions

2012

04/01/13

Population and Environment

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected because of formatting issue but invited to resubmit; took a few days for desk rejectioin

2013

01/23/14

Post-Communist Economies

Accepted

2

2

2

Excellent process. New editorial team doing a sound job in moving papers through the pipeline.

2015

02/18/16

Post-Communist Economies

Accepted

4

2

2

Constructive and very detailed referee comments improved the paper. Great experience.

2016

04/10/17

Psychometrika

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Not interested in the topic, acceptable decision.

2013

08/12/13

Public Choice

Accepted

1

1

2

first response in about 4 weeks.

2015

06/02/15

Public Choice

Accepted

2

2

3

Very helpful comments.

2012

02/03/13

Public Choice

Accepted

3

1

2

Good reports. Excellent and clear communication with editors. Not easy - but straightforward.

2014

10/25/15

Public Choice

Accepted

1

1

2

Very efficient.

2012

01/04/13

Public Choice

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

One good report, one bad report. Nice comments and feedback from Associate Editor

2014

10/11/14

Public Choice

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Poor and unhelpful referee reports, club journal

2016

04/13/17

Public Choice

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

Referees didn't get the point of the paper, my fault.

2014

04/11/17

Public Choice

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

Referee report was positive and recommended R&R. Editor then read the paper and rejected it.

2013

11/25/13

Public Choice

Ref Reject

12

N/A

0

Horrible process. Waited a year for two low quality reports.

2014

04/27/15

Public Choice

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2011

04/15/13

Public Choice

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

2017

09/20/17

Public Choice

Ref Reject

5

3

2

rejected after 1 revision, terrible AE

2011

08/02/13

Public Choice

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

1 good report, 1 useless

2013

10/12/14

Public Choice

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

rejection after 9 months without any useful comments

2011

04/30/16

Public Choice

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

1 reject and 1 R&R. Two useful reports and one garbage report thrashing the paper. Overall a good experience!

2018

04/19/18

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Not really a complaint though as there is no submission fee and the process was timely.

2015

03/09/16

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

04/23/14

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor desk rejected after a couple of days due to lack of fit.

2013

01/20/14

Public Choice

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Desk rejected in 2 days. The editor suggested to try a more mainstream Public Finance journal (I think may paper could have fit Public Choice but fair enough I will try another Public Finance journal)

2014

06/20/14

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected the next day. Editor was polite. The paper was not a good fit as it did not he approach does not engage the distinctive public choice literature. That sounds fair to me. The Editor suggested a more traditional public finance journal.

2018

04/03/18

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

very fast desk reject (next day).

2017

09/04/17

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick desk reject and no comments of substance (form letter) but no cost of submission. So not good but frankly much better than other journals

2014

01/30/14

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2014

03/07/14

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor desk rejected after a couple of weeks due to lack of fit.

2012

01/08/13

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in less than 12 hours

2018

07/21/18

Public Choice

Desk Reject

12

3

2

very bad handling process

2010

01/01/13

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast desk reject on subjective grounds. However, no evidence the paper was actually read. Not really a complaint though as there is no submission fee and the process was timely.

2015

03/09/16

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Your paper is not fit for public choice try with public economics.

2012

04/23/14

Public Choice

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2010

01/09/13

Quantitative Finance

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

One unprofessional and clueless referee. Very quick handling but refereeing quality just absurd.

2015

03/14/16

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Accepted

2

2

4

Good process. One very grumpy referee report. 1 on the fence. 2 positive. Katz had very clear advice regarding revision (also what parts of the referee reports to ignore). Good process (and none of the coauthors are from 02139).

2011

02/14/14

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

One helpful, not sure the other really read the paper

2016

11/08/16

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

Rejected. Larry suggested to send it to field journal. Sent it to another top 5 instead where it got accepted after one round of revisions - never give up guys!

2 rejects, 1 R&R. That was disappointing. Katz voted to reject. First two reports were "not general interest enough" and didn't have much to say substantively as a result (1-2 pages). The third was R&R, and was more substantive. Helpful and doable things. I was pleased with the experience because I've never made this far with them.

2017

11/03/17

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Very fast, two high quality referee reports.

2013

02/13/14

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

2011

12/20/12

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

4

2015

10/21/15

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

Fair reject with detailed reports. Editor and refs liked the topic but not the empirical strategy.

Great process, fortunate to make it past desk as LRM grad student, very helpful ref report received 8 days after submission.

2013

12/17/13

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2011

12/23/12

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

0

Fast process, 1 good report and 1 very short and not very helpful report. Was advised to submit to a field journal

2016

02/15/17

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

One good referree report, one positive but unhelpful, one negative and entirely useless. Editor was Barro.

2012

04/30/13

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Very happy LRM made it past desk. One good report who saw potential and offered advice, one who just didn't like the idea.

2015

03/16/15

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/24/12

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

3

3 reports in 28 days. Rejection was fair, nice comments by Katz who suggested AEJ:Policy, REStat, and top fields. 1 referree was critical, but offered great suggestions, other 2 were mediocre at best.

2015

05/08/15

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

2012

12/25/12

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

2012

12/21/12

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Katz wrote his usual bs about my fascinating paper. Ref reports were okay. One decent, the other sloppy.

2013

04/07/13

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

2 good (short) referee reports, good comments from Katz as well. He recommended 3 other (good) journals to try. Lucky to get past desk reject.

2014

06/21/14

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

2013

09/01/13

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

Surprised didn't get a desk reject. Shleifer was the editor. 2 pretty decent referee reports.Of course one said "the quality of the model and empirical evidence is below the standards for a journal like the QJE."

2015

01/19/16

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

3

2014

08/22/14

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

fast and uninformative

2014

02/20/14

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

06/03/13

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

23 hours and 30 minutes after submission, desk reject from Shleifer.

2015

12/18/15

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

01/02/13

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

within 12 hours

2012

12/28/12

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Less than 24 hours.Rogert J. Barro was the editor. My previous two research papers were also desk rejected by Barro. They all got published in other journals and a book. Desk rejection by QJE does not convey the quality of the paper.

2015

10/03/15

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Katz rejected my paper before I was done submitting it; suspect time travel

2014

01/08/15

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

1 Week (Desk Reject)

2018

09/04/18

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Helpman rejected in 6 days, no comment

2011

12/21/12

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Very quick response from Larry Katz. Not so many comments; recommended two very good field journals.

2014

06/09/14

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Usual "not general enough" comment.

2014

01/07/15

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Katz rejected in two hours with comments that seemed to be written for some other paper.

2013

11/06/13

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rejected within 24hrs by Katz. Suggested AEJ:AE, RESTAT and top field.

2014

08/06/14

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/20/12

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

No comments from Katz except go to field journal.

2016

07/27/16

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Lasted 4 days! Barro says not sufficiently general interest, and advises to try a field journal instead.

It is a Finance paper. Desk rejected in 2 days with a very short report "better fit for a finance journal"

2018

04/20/18

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

I am afraid that your paper is too narrow for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. A specialized journal is more suitable for this contribution.

2009

04/23/14

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rejected by Katz, with comments, in less than 8 hours.

2011

04/30/13

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Katz needed less time to skim the paper and offer a few good comments than I needed to write a one-sentence cover letter

2017

07/10/17

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Less than 1 hour. New record?

2017

09/23/18

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

5 days for a desk reject. But the editor read the paper, and recommends Econometrica or JET or TE

2013

03/17/13

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

A form-letter rejection from Katz. He might have read the abstract--clearly doesn't know the literature enough to see the contribution. No meaningful comments. I've been around the block a few times, published in top 5, and most of my articles get cited considerably more than average for the journal. But I'm not in any club and not at an elite school (by choice). Except when I have coauthored with someone who is at an elite school, I've been desk rejected every time at QJE. This might be my strongest paper ever, but getting it someplace good will be a slog. I get it. People need filters. But the discipline should find another way.

2018

05/15/18

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

useful advice

2013

06/11/13

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Very quick rejection (24 hours), with nice words from the editor, who obviously read the paper.

2015

04/20/16

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected by Katz within 24 hours. Clearly scanned the paper, deemed not general enough, and recommended other outlets. Nice rejection letter.

2016

07/03/16

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Wrong zipcode

2014

07/30/14

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2013

09/17/14

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in 1 week. Editor suggested field journal.

2014

01/28/15

Quarterly Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Came back within 4 hours, nice letter by Katz with suggestions of where to submit

2015

02/04/15

RAND Journal of Economics

Pending

4

N/A

3

Good reports. Armstrong is so much better than Hermalin...

2015

03/01/16

RAND Journal of Economics

Accepted

6

3

2

6 months for the first R&R (2 referee reports plus a very detailed report from the editor), then 3 months for the 2nd R&R, then the paper was accepted. Overall very good quality of reports and very helpful guidance from the editor.

2016

05/21/17

RAND Journal of Economics

Accepted

4

3

2

Very impressed with comments received by the co-editor (Mark Armstrong), which were more substantive than the reviewers.

2010

02/28/14

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

One report useful, the other contentless

2013

12/14/13

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

sad but fair

2013

06/17/13

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

Very nice editor's letter. Two good referee reports, useful comments

2017

09/26/17

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

nice letter from editor, good and fair comments

2014

01/29/15

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

2016

09/18/16

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

2011

12/21/12

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

0

Awful experience! After waiting for more than 5 months I got 0 Referee reports and a rejection based on very loose comments. Very disappointed after the long wait and paying a 100 Euro fee...

Referees felt nothing wrong with the paper but (perhaps) did not think the paper fit this journal.

2017

11/27/17

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Helpful referee reports and editor

2016

07/11/17

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2011

01/29/13

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

3

2

R&R, then reject. Despite disappointing turnout, reports were good with useful and specific suggestions on ways to improve the paper. Also useful comments from the editor.

2016

03/11/17

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2014

01/06/15

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

2011

01/29/13

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

One good report (weak r&r). the other report is empty (rejection).

2013

02/18/14

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

2010

08/02/13

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

Referees read the paper, but not well, as they asked me to do things that I had already done... Ignored the fact that their proposed biases work against my conclusion. Editor acknowledge that it was a bad draw.

2016

11/12/16

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Decent reports highlighting different issues, mostly sympathetic, but tough. Editor rejected, but I have a feeling that both refs recommended R&R for different reasons.

2013

07/17/14

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

1 ref report good. others ref reports okay

2011

04/12/13

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

6

6

3

10 years in the field, my worse experience ever. Paper went multiple rounds over 2 years. One referee kept claiming one thing was wrong. That thing (s)he claimed was wrong was in fact trivially correct, but the referee was completely clueless. Kathryn spier, the editor, was even more clueless and unable to see that we were right and s(he) was wrong. In doubt, Spier decided to reject the paper.

2016

08/23/18

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

2013

10/29/13

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Solid, fair reports.

2014

03/21/15

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

rejected on the base of not having large neough contribution, reports are okay, but the negative referee is very rude in the report

2013

03/31/15

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

5

4

2

rejected after 2 rounds of revisions. complete waste of time

2015

02/09/18

RAND Journal of Economics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

2011

01/10/13

RAND Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejection came in 10 days. Pretty rough coments from an editor who clearly did not get the point of the paper. However, I take as it was me not being able to pass the make the point I wanted.

2.5 weeks. Per editor, not good fit for IO bent of the journal, not broad enough for general interest journal. Full refund.

2018

08/29/18

RAND Journal of Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2 weeks. Had a paper published there recently. Editor said he appreciated the previous paper but seemed to reject this one (which is probably better) since it fits in with a similar literature. Disappointing.

2012

02/28/14

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Pending

4

N/A

2

2015

02/09/16

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Pending

2

N/A

2

2015

01/13/16

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Accepted

3

1

1

2011

01/11/13

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Accepted

3

1

2

Good experience.

2014

03/12/15

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Accepted

3

2

2

Efficient process, stuck to advertised timings. Two good referee reports and associate editor Zhenlin Yang helped a lot in improving the paper.

2015

08/20/18

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Accepted

3

1

2

Constructive comments by both referees, nice suggestion by editor

2012

07/07/13

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Accepted

2

1

1

The submission and revision process was great and timely. However, I had issues with production, they uploaded the wrong version of my paper etc, and it looked like it wasn't even copy edited. However, everything was fixed, and overall I am happy

Very efficient journal. Decision was made in 45 days. Both referees have good understanding of the topic. The first referee points out at the weaknesses of the paper and proposes reasonable solutions. The second one is more critical and seems to be angry by the fact that I'm not citing his work.

2016

09/24/16

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2015

04/27/15

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Useless reports.

2012

01/19/13

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Very reputable journal with fast response policy which is good for authors: desk rejection in weeks, referee rejection in 2-3 months (usually). We got referee rejection in 2.5 months: 2 referees, one favours RR, other rejects. Down side: reports are quite short: 1 paragraph each. Editor (Y Zenou) sides with rejection because: if empirical, RSUE publishes mainly papers with methodological innovation. We have no new methodology because, when tried, the data suggest traditional fits better: not interesting enough for RSUE. Sum up: Fast but not cool, Editor.

2015

02/02/16

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Fast and Efficient Journal. One very good report, one OK.

2012

02/15/13

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Fast and Efficient Journal. One very good report, one OK.

2012

02/15/13

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

One referee report indicated it would be a better fit in a different journal. Fair enough. The other report was *atrocious*.

2016

01/24/18

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Editor is bonkers, he said article was outside scope of journal.when it was clearly regiona/urban economics article.

2013

08/05/13

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Desk rejected within 10 days because the topic was not fit to the journal (it may have been a reasonable response given the topic). No complains.

2014

06/20/14

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor desk rejected in 24 hours

2014

11/09/14

Research in Economics

Accepted

2

4

2

Two useful reports that improved the paper. Editor Michele Boldrin did a good job handling the paper.

2018

04/16/18

Research in Economics

Accepted

6

1

1

A bit long but very helpful referee report

2013

12/10/13

Research in Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

0

Agreed that this journal is a joke. The editor asked the author to collect more data and resubmit as a new article. After more data were collected, the editor said "a referee suggested empirical work was not serious enough." I bet the editor said it himself, because no referee report was provided. If you don't like my paper then desk reject the first time, and don't ask me to resubmit!

2015

06/17/16

Research in Economics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

The new editor rejected the paper 2 days after submitted it. The decision is quite fair and briefly justified. He gave few recommendations.

2014

11/04/14

Research in Economics

Desk Reject

3

N/A

0

This journal is a joke. After three months, I received an email from the editor that he still hasn't received the referee report, so he assumed the referee didn't like the paper and therefore he rejects it. No substantive comments about the content of the paper at all.

2015

11/07/15

Resource and Energy Economics

Ref Reject

10

N/A

1

2012

04/24/14

Resource and Energy Economics

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

2015

02/01/17

Resource and Energy Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

2013

10/01/13

Resource and Energy Economics

Ref Reject

8

N/A

1

2011

10/30/13

Review of Development Economics

Pending

0

N/A

0

The status has been "Pending Editor Triage" for 10 months. No reply to my e-mail.

2016

08/08/17

Review of Development Economics

Pending

14

N/A

0

Waiting more than a year, since October 2015. In May 2016 the editor promised a decision within a days. A number of emails without reply since then. In December 2016 we managed to get a reply from the managing editor with the same story, that the decision was a matter of days. He requested that we sent him a reminder after a week. We have done that, after several weeks, no answer.

2015

01/13/17

Review of Development Economics

Accepted

4

3

2

The initial resposen took too long (almost 4 moth to be sent our to referees). I had to send two emaisl to follow up the process at the beginning. However, once the paper was assigned to referees, the speed was normal. So do keep an eye on the paper and cotnact the editor if necessary.

2016

12/21/17

Review of Economic Dynamics

Accepted

3

4

2

Very efficient process, very good comments from both the reviewers and the editor.

2016

01/08/18

Review of Economic Dynamics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Very efficient. Reports were reasonable.

2018

09/03/18

Review of Economic Dynamics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Very efficient process

2017

01/15/18

Review of Economic Dynamics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Very efficient editorial screening

2017

01/05/18

Review of Economic Studies

Pending

7

N/A

3

Very good reports that help us to improve the paper a lot. The editor make effort to found the right people to read the paper.

2013

01/13/15

Review of Economic Studies

Pending

0

N/A

0

2013

02/10/13

Review of Economic Studies

Pending

0

N/A

0

2013

09/17/14

Review of Economic Studies

Accepted

6

6

2

Excellent editorial service from Bruno Biais. Good comments from refs that really helped the paper.

2009

01/29/13

Review of Economic Studies

Accepted

5

4

3

Tough but receptive referees. In the end the paper got much improved.

2014

12/13/15

Review of Economic Studies

Accepted

7

5

3

Great comments from the referees and editor. The paper is now much stronger.

2012

09/12/18

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

one good report, one very good report

2013

05/27/14

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

7

N/A

3

2011

12/22/12

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

two very weak reports, editor obviously did not read the paper, overall very bad experience

2015

06/23/16

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

5

N/A

5

Reject and Resubmit

2010

12/21/12

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

6

4

0

2013

09/17/14

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

2 out of 3 were good, helpful, reports. 1 report was nonsensical and tipped it to rejection

2017

02/23/18

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

1 serious person pushing his method. 2 students with mostly useless comments. I thought that I deserved more respect. Oh well, on to the next journal.

2016

03/26/17

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

2015

10/30/15

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Good report and fast desk

2013

06/03/13

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

interesting and polite reports. In general, efficient journal

2014

12/03/14

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Useful comments from editor; one really great ref. report and a couple of pretty good ones.

2012

03/01/13

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

2011

12/24/12

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

8

N/A

4

very good reports

2012

02/11/13

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Two useless reports plus one from someone that has obviously not read the paper.

2013

02/13/14

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

4

Split referees, Adda came down on the side of the negative ones. Not very useful comments from any of them.

One R&R with minor rev, one inscrutable report, and one unfair report with incorrect claims. Editor read paper and gave good comments, but ultimately rejected.

2017

11/18/17

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

0

one very weird report, asking to cite an unknown WP, from a PhD student...

2005

08/02/13

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

5

N/A

4

Fair process: with 3 very different reccomendations from the refereees, the editor asked for a fourth one. Though nothing extremely deep, comments were of acceptable quality.

2013

04/02/14

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

2013

11/01/13

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

6

N/A

4

2015

08/19/15

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Response time was decent. 1 short and useless report, 1 incompetent (was the reason the paper was rejected) - the referee could not understand that his major criticism was trivial and was dedicated one line in introduction, 1 favorable report.

2015

06/14/16

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2012

01/16/13

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

ambivalent

2013

01/25/14

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

9

8

3

Got (weak) R&R in first round, rejected in second round (although I still think we addressed most comments). Referee reports were lenthy and very useful. Obviously, being turned down after a two-year long process and a very extensive revision is bad for a young author.

2016

01/20/18

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

1 report from a senior researcher, who thinks that our paper is a fine exercise but suits field journal better. The other referee took 7 month without giving back the report. The editor wrote the 2nd report.

2014

01/13/15

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Two good reports. One useless.

2012

04/02/13

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Two extensive reports, and the third was a couple of lines (probably someone outside the field). One was favorable, the other was on the fence. The report that was on fence did not understand some of the points made in the paper, as his biggest concern was addressed in the introduction itself. I think s/he would have been satisfied by an appendix section on the issue raised.

2015

01/18/17

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

21

N/A

2

One report was not very helpful. I think the editor may have been waiting on a 3rd report, glad they didn't wait any longer (20 weeks is enough to wait for a reject).

2014

07/21/14

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

0

N/A

0

Three days to desk rejection.

2015

01/20/16

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Two helpful referee reports. Editor wrote another helpful report as well.

2018

04/02/18

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

One report o.k., one useless report

2011

04/04/13

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

One great, very helpful report; one report that made an honest effort, but wasn't useful; one report that was one paragraph long and littered with spelling mistakes.

2016

06/19/17

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

Solid reports; fair rejection.

2009

01/29/13

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Very clear that two of the three referees hadn't read the paper. They raised concerns that very literally addressed in section heads. The third referee recommended acceptance, but the editor rejected. Will not submit here in the future.

2015

02/08/16

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

0

N/A

0

In reality, the paper is poorly motivated and the link between the model and the anecdotal evidence discussed in the introduction is not clear. More importantly, the analysis is flawed by a number of major shortcomings. The model is not presented in a clear and intelligible way. The structure of the game, the policy and strategy spaces and other concepts are not introduced with sufficient clarity. There are several claims that are either wrong or very poorly explained (e.g., a Nash equilibrium need not be Pareto optimal!). In general, it is difficult to follow the derivations due to a lack of intuitive explanations. Finally, the empirical exercise at the end of the paper is questionable on several grounds. The equation to be estimated is not well explained and basic econometric issues (e.g., the problems related to the inclusion of lagged dependent variables) are not discussed. For these reasons, the paper does not meet the standards for consideration in a top-5 journal.

2009

04/23/14

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Decent reports

2013

06/27/13

Review of Economic Studies

Ref Reject

7

N/A

3

2011

12/21/12

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Clueless editor thinks results are of narrow interest. Apparently is unaware of large literature in multiple fields to which topic pertains.

2016

09/19/16

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in a week. Editor read the paper and gave helpful feedback. Recommended field journals...

2016

12/06/16

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Not too bad an experience. Editor clearly read the paper and claimed a referee did too. Fair rejection.

Paper sent to an editor with completely different interests. Rejected based upon (naturally) lack of interest in the topic.

2014

05/31/16

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

1

N/A

1

Not sure whether to classify this as a desk or referee reject. An associate editor left some comments, which showed that they read at least some of the paper. Not sure I'd call it a full referee report, however, and only receiving one report is strange. Probably the editor took a look at my zip code, and told the AE that "this should be quick".

2015

10/30/15

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor suggested a field journal.

2013

06/20/13

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Useful letter from the editor Dirk Krueger (aprox. 2 weeks)

2018

08/21/18

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

1 day after assigned to co-editor

2018

03/08/18

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2014

12/03/15

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2010

01/09/13

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

My impression is that the editor didn't even bother looking at the paper.

2016

08/13/16

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

8 Days to get a desk reject. Editor obviously read the paper and had great comments. Liked the paper but contribution too small. Would definitely recommend it even if it's a longshot.

Submitted the paper 11:45. Went downstairs for some snack. Came back to my office at 12:05. Checked my e-mail and editor rejected the paper. Reason - paper was too specialized.

2016

01/17/17

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2011

08/02/13

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Replied within a week but editor clearly read the paper and identified main points which, however, seemed not important to him to warrant publication in RES. Obviously an inevitably subjective decision, but given this, the handling was very fair.

2016

10/25/16

Review of Economic Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject after 1 week. Minor comments from editor who appears to have at least gotten the gist of the paper.

2015

02/19/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Pending

3

3

3

High quality reports.

2018

08/30/18

Review of Economics and Statistics

Pending

20

N/A

1

2012

11/06/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Accepted

14

6

3

Very slow, but fair process overall. 2 very good reports and one poor report.

2012

02/25/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

2012

02/02/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

0

After 7 months at the journal, I get one extremely low quality referee report. The report must have been farmed out to some grad student who couldn't write. I understand there is variability in this process, but it was a terrible experience.

Nice reports. All reports are positive. Comments are mainly about rephrasing implications and minor issues. Paper not anywhere close to editor's field of interest.

2016

04/04/17

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

2 R&R, 1 reject - referee rejected

2013

06/07/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

0

One low quality (taste-based) referee report

2018

10/19/18

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

10

N/A

3

Two out of three referee reports were good one was much less. Thorough review

2013

07/29/14

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Was satisfied with the experience, solid referee reports

2016

01/19/17

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

0

7 months for 1 decent report and 1 poor report. I don't disagree with decision, but too long for a relatively straight-forward empirical paper.

2016

07/17/17

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Fast process and fairly good reports.

2018

04/20/18

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

6 months for useless reports. A journal to avoid.

2016

10/28/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

The referees raised concerns that we were not able to see before, and they were fair. Gorodnichenko was nice. Wrote that he enjoyed the paper very much, but commented that to address the referees comments, we need to do "very major work."

2014

02/18/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

After 6 months I got an extremely low quality report; looked like the reviewer had no idea about the paper or even the field in general. Horrible experience. Never again. From here on, AEJs are the way to go outside top 5.

2013

07/21/14

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

Very good quality ref reports

2011

12/25/12

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Very good referee reports. Mark Watson was the editor

2010

12/22/12

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

7 months for two very low quality reports. Editor just pointed at reports and made no obvious effort to think about the paper.

2016

09/20/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

13

N/A

3

Fair referee reports, but I had to wait pretty long.

2013

09/10/14

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

2

3

3

Very fast process. 1 good report and 2 of low quality probably written by grad students.

2018

08/14/18

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

2016

11/12/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

4

2011

08/02/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

10

N/A

3

10 months is too long to get back. Reports were of moderate quality.

2016

12/26/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

2016

08/30/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

8

N/A

3

Reports were pretty good. Eight months is a long wait though.

2014

01/22/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

1

highly unprofessional, the report is not useful, comments make little sense and contradict to the extant literature on the topic.

2014

07/03/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

The reviewer's reports came up 2 months after submission. It than took the editor (Mark Watson) another 6 months to read reports and make a decision. Very inefficient handling process

2009

01/07/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Response was less than two months from submission -- super quick. Referee reports were low quality, but relatively standard low quality rather than being especially bad. At least they were fast.

2015

09/04/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

7 months for 2 reviews (and one reviewer was already familiar with paper). Editor provided no additional comments. What takes so long?

2017

12/13/17

Review of Economics and Statistics

Ref Reject

7

N/A

3

Very good and insightful reports

2012

07/30/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2015

10/05/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast desk reject, no substantial comments. $89.

2018

09/12/18

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Amitabh Chandra rejected in one month with no infomation

2013

01/02/14

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2015

09/09/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Standard rejection letter. Quick (10 days), but useless.

2018

11/16/18

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

no feedback

2015

07/09/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2015

12/03/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Expected at least some referee reports but got a bad match editor-wise.

2018

11/14/18

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rejected in 10 days. Thanks for quick decision.

2015

08/13/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in one day

2013

04/03/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Desk reject after 2 months! Editor suggested top field, decided not to send to referrees due to "narrowness of topic." You needed 2 months to tell me that?

2016

06/20/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Almost two months for desk reject, no submission refund

2012

12/27/12

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2 months for a generic desk rejection with no comment whatsoever.. but of course I am not in the club.

2015

04/09/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/21/12

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Amit Khandelwal desk rejected a RCT health paper in 2 days with no specific comment..no refund of submission fee, I do not belong to their club

2018

03/16/18

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

No comments

2013

01/18/14

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick rejection (12 days), with no comments on the paper

2015

04/20/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Near immediate desk reject (48 hr)

2014

03/28/14

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Rodrik rejected 10 days after submission, advised a field journal

2010

01/07/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Another 2+ month desk reject. No refund. Ridiculous.

2016

09/29/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

desk reject in 10 days

2013

06/04/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2 months for a generic desk rejection with not 1 signle comment on the paper. Not very impressed.

2015

08/11/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

desk rejected in 3 days. The editor likes the idea, but things the method is not new, so recommended to a field journal.

2015

02/13/15

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Took a couple of days.

2012

01/04/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject after 2 weeks

2016

06/23/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Fast desk reject. 3 Top 5 referees and editor said the paper was a good fit for ReStat, meh...

2018

08/22/18

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2.5 months for a desk reject with no feedback (labor paper)

2015

01/05/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk Reject in one week for lack of contribution

2016

09/07/16

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Two months to a desk reject, with zero information from the editor's response. Frustrating.

2012

04/30/13

Review of Economics and Statistics

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

It was quick. Basically got a response on the next working day following a weekend.

2012

04/07/13

Review of Economics of the Household

Pending

3

N/A

3

Quick response: three months to receive three detailed referee reports and email from editor. Very happy with experience so far.

2015

10/02/15

Review of Economics of the Household

Accepted

3

2

2

2013

12/02/13

Review of Economics of the Household

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

very quick response and a useful referee report

2018

05/18/18

Review of Economics of the Household

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

1 useless report, and second was useful report. Editor rejected the paper, but it was not unexpected.

2015

10/03/15

Review of Economics of the Household

Ref Reject

5

1

3

One nasty and not helpful review, but two others were very constructive. Good experience, even my paper was rejected.

2013

03/13/16

Review of Economics of the Household

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2012

08/13/13

Review of Economics of the Household

Ref Reject

3

3

2

Rejected after revision for reasons that had nothing to do with the revision and should've been brought up on the first decision. Main reason for this is that they assigned a different associate editor on the second round which I find highly unusual. Never again!

Edmans said he wanted RoF to be top 3. Turns out that means he's following the Schwert model: don't read the paper, regurgitate the reviewer's comments in the decision letter.

2017

12/07/17

Review of Finance

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

ref reports were to the point but could have been higher quality for amount of time under review

2014

08/06/14

Review of Finance

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Worst referee report ever with unsubstantiated claims. Hollifield copy-pasted unsubstantiated claims in rejection letter apparently without even having a look on the paper.

2014

10/23/14

Review of Finance

Ref Reject

2

2

2

2 rounds of r+r

2010

12/28/12

Review of Finance

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Two reports, one useful, one much less so

2016

05/31/16

Review of Finance

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Good referee reports, quick response

2015

09/23/15

Review of Finance

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

Ref report was a joke, inaccurate, full of typos. Seemed to have an agenda, as though I offended his work. Will not submit here again.

2014

01/12/15

Review of Finance

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

2012

01/21/13

Review of Finance

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

12/28/12

Review of Financial Studies

Accepted

2

2

1

3 rounds and then accepted

2007

05/22/14

Review of Financial Studies

Accepted

2

2

2

1 report (from different referees) each round.

2010

01/29/13

Review of Financial Studies

Accepted

1

N/A

1

very efficient process but experience depends crucially on editor

2013

01/16/15

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

2014

07/07/14

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

one recommended R&R the other did not read the paper was clearly ideologically biased, the editor sided with the latter

2012

03/28/13

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

one positive referee report, one negative referee report. Editor took issue with a methodological aspect of the paper and rejected

2013

02/24/14

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

Constructive comments.

2016

11/15/16

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Referees did not understand the contribution of the paper. Thought already in literature.

2017

10/04/17

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

0

Two reports. One guy who had no clue, the other who had good insight into our paper. Both were helpful because the guy with no clue (reading between the lines) clued us in about what the audience cares about.

2014

07/17/14

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

very thorough referee report, comments were mostly related to theoretical motivation, paper was submitted without much change to JFE and eventually accepted there

2008

05/22/14

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

1

N/A

1

2011

12/28/12

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

fair report

2014

08/06/15

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

3

N/A

1

reviewer knew an aspect of the literature and appeared to promote his own unpublished paper under review at the same journal

2013

05/22/14

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

1

N/A

0

-- Divided referee reports. One was more helpful than the other.

2013

02/16/14

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

1

N/A

3

1 reviewer was clearly an expert, 2 others were less thorough than might be expected

2013

05/22/14

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2011

12/27/12

Review of Financial Studies

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

Garbage referee report. Shame for RFS.

2013

12/07/13

Review of Financial Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor from outside of the field (empirical corporate fin) did not think that my paper (ap theory) is interesting. His comments indicate he did not have an open arm to read introduction carefully to desk reject.

2018

04/22/18

Review of Financial Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor desk rejected stating that paper (which was on the program of Top 3 conferences etc.) had no economic relevance and was not worth being sent out to a referee. Very respectless!

2017

10/22/17

Review of Financial Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2012

01/29/13

Review of Financial Studies

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject in one week, some good comments from editor

2015

09/23/15

Review of Financial Studies

Desk Reject

2

N/A

2

1 referee report by an idiot that just filled three pages with garbage to look like a better referee; other report was better but still not nearly as smart as QJE referees. Ljunquist is pretty passive

2014

05/25/14

Review of Financial Studies

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/28/12

Review of Income and Wealth

Accepted

4

1

2

2010

01/10/13

Review of Income and Wealth

Ref Reject

8

N/A

2

2 reports were both useful

2017

03/26/18

Review of Income and Wealth

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Not Suitable

2016

08/02/16

Review of Income and Wealth

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk Reject in a Week

2016

09/04/16

Review of Income and Wealth

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

Editor gives no justification whatsoever. Very unprofessional.

2014

08/28/14

Review of Income and Wealth

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Not Suitable within a week

2016

08/06/16

Review of International Economics

Pending

8

N/A

0

2012

08/02/13

Review of International Economics

Accepted

3

2

2

Very good referee reports.

2011

01/01/13

Review of International Economics

Accepted

3

1

2

Quick turnaround with two okay reports. Both referees suggested papers to be cited in the literature review, which seem like their own papers.

2015

09/23/15

Review of International Economics

Accepted

3

5

2

After submission, we got a RR in 12 weeks. Reports were very positive, it took us 12 weeks to resubmit. But then, it took 20 weeks until we got the acceptance. First response was very good (and positive), still there was a long waiting afterwards. Overall, very positive experience.

2014

02/05/15

Review of International Economics

Ref Reject

6

N/A

1

Initially submitted on 2 Aug, we got the rejection six month later. The Editor does appologize on the long delay saying one referee did not provide the report. Based on the comments of one more referee with few points, he rejects. Such along time frame for such a poor assessment of the paper. Not a good experience.

2015

01/28/16

Review of International Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

One very good report. Seems to be a fair process

2014

10/03/14

Review of International Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2014

05/22/15

Review of International Economics

Ref Reject

4

N/A

1

2012

04/15/13

Review of International Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

2012

02/24/13

Review of International Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Very nice editor. One ref report with extremely constructive criticisms. The other one was less so.

2016

02/21/17

Review of International Economics

Desk Reject

13

N/A

0

13 months for editor to desk reject because the paper has no empirical section

2011

07/27/15

Review of World Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

1

Low quality referee report.

2012

03/22/13

Review of World Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Two short reports

2012

11/08/13

Review of World Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

One good report, very constructive, the other one rejecting the paper

2011

11/08/13

Review of World Economics

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

2.5 months for a desk rejection... I had to contact the Editor after 2 months of seeing no change in status on my manuscript. Worst experience ever.

2018

07/09/18

Small Business Economics

Accepted

3

1

1

Highly constructive comments.

2015

12/25/15

Small Business Economics

Accepted

9

5

1

2011

01/07/13

Small Business Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

More than 16 weeks!! The first "editor invited" declined after 8 weeks and two emails to follow up. Secodn editor waited almost 6 weeks after receiving the referee reports. The outcome (referee rejection) was acceptable but 5 month waiting is a large waste of time! Not cool

Mostly unhelpful report filled with numerous unnecessary resentful and bitter. The referee seemed to be under great emotional distress.

2018

09/12/18

Social Choice and Welfare

Ref Reject

6

N/A

0

2016

02/22/17

Social Choice and Welfare

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

The paper is not of the interest of SCW readers!

2015

08/17/15

Social Choice and Welfare

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected within 7 days. An Associate Editor clearly read the paper. The Editor was quite polite. The paper was not a good fit for the journal and another journal was recommended. I think that's fair, since I had also suspected the paper might not be a great fit.

2018

04/09/18

Social Indicators Research

Accepted

2

1

1

2013

04/24/13

Southern Economic Journal

Accepted

5

N/A

2

Excellent review with great advice on how to improve the paper. Associate editors are very professional. Great experience!

2013

01/14/14

Southern Economic Journal

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Fast turnaround but very poor reports

2015

11/11/15

Southern Economic Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2015

01/19/16

Southern Economic Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2012

03/26/13

Southern Economic Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

2010

12/21/12

Southern Economic Journal

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

2012

12/21/12

Southern Economic Journal

Desk Reject

0

N/A

1

Desk Reject in a Week but it did come with two pages of notes and questions that should help the paper.

Although I withdrew my article, editor sent me a rejection letter in a very rude manner. You can even not see these wordings in Game of Thrones. Bad experience.

2016

07/09/16

Stochastic Models

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2016

07/09/16

Strategic Behavior and the Environment

Pending

2

N/A

2

Very quick refereeing

2014

01/26/15

Strategic Behavior and the Environment

Accepted

2

3

2

High quality referee reports

2011

11/28/13

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Accepted

3

3

2

Great experience

2017

09/21/18

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Accepted

3

3

3

2017

09/19/18

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

Some of the most useful and thorough referee reports I've gotten. Timely, informed, and critical. Paper got rejected but everything else about submitting to this journal was more than satisfactory.

2016

11/02/16

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

One referee thought the paper was too much like another, and while the other two recommended R&R (with good, doable comments), rejected anyways.

2016

11/07/16

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Ref Reject

5

N/A

2

One very constructive and positive report from economist, and one worst-I-ever-recieved report from a law scholar (maybe). The law scholar did not like technical thing but I just used. basic IV! Very disappointed at the editor who made a decision based on such a low quality report.

2015

04/06/16

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

Detailed reports, 2 negative, 1 positive; nice letter from co-editor.

2014

04/09/14

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2014

09/30/14

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Unlucky with a referee, i guess

2017

08/30/17

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

two months pretty long for a desk reject, but can't really complain about the desk reject itself because the paper is not so great

2014

07/03/14

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Desk Reject

4

N/A

0

Desk Reject took 4 months. Total waste of time.

2017

07/09/17

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Disappointed it wasn't sent out for review, but can't fault them for speed!

2014

07/28/14

The Manchester School

Accepted

6

4

2

One referee seemed inexperienced and little informative comments.

2010

04/29/15

The World Economy

Pending

15

N/A

0

I withdraw my submission after 15 months of submission and no answer from the editor

2013

09/11/14

The World Economy

Pending

1

N/A

0

Submitted in 2012. Two years later still waiting for referee reports. Have emailed for status to no avail.

2012

11/13/14

The World Economy

Pending

8

1

0

Withdrew my paper after 8 months of no contact from Editor, referee, etc. Very slow in responding inquiries. They never refunded my fee either.

2015

07/18/16

The World Economy

Accepted

5

2

2

It was a long process but the editor and referees were genuinely helpful.

2017

07/19/18

The World Economy

Accepted

5

1

1

The first revision took around 5 months. After that, the R&R only took 10 days and we also tackled a minor comment from the editor. Kneller is a very good editor, the experience has been very good.

2018

07/25/18

The World Economy

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Referee comments were pretty minor. I am surprised no R&R.

2014

10/23/14

The World Economy

Ref Reject

9

N/A

1

Nine months to one terrible report that had a lot of BLOCK CAPITALS and underlines. Editor decided to reject because he could only find one person to review. Seems like a sound reason.

2015

12/23/15

The World Economy

Ref Reject

4

N/A

2

Fair process. One reviewer asking for minor revisions, the other clearly reject the paper. In the end, the editor reject the article

2011

05/01/14

Theoretical Economics

Accepted

2

2

3

2/3 ref reports were detailed and useful. The co-editor gave very specific, though difficult requests for the revision.

2015

06/28/16

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2011

01/10/13

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

1 very good referee report, 1 completely useless

2013

12/21/13

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

3

3

1

one helpful report. fair enough.

2014

10/06/15

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Very fast. One excellent referee report, one terrible. AE also helpful.

2013

05/23/13

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

2013

11/22/13

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

2/2 referee reports were positive and suggested R&R because the contribution was significant enough. The editor rejected it though.

2017

12/22/17

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

Excellent reports that really helped the paper at the next journal.

2010

01/29/13

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

two good one bad report

2012

01/13/13

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

1

Terribly disappointing experience. Osbourne rejected following a 6-7 line bs report by adding his own very cheap comments. We thought we'd receive useful reports even if we got rejected, but this turned out to be a total waste of time.

2012

12/07/13

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

3

2012

01/21/13

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

1

N/A

3

Efficient journal and good reports

2012

06/03/13

Theoretical Economics

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Very good referee reports and useful suggestions from the AE

2015

01/16/16

Urban Studies

Accepted

7

6

3

2011

12/23/12

Urban Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

5

Terrible reports, but quick.

2014

06/21/14

Urban Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

5

Terrible reports, but quick.

2014

06/21/14

Urban Studies

Ref Reject

2

N/A

5

Terrible reports, but quick.

2014

06/21/14

Urban Studies

Ref Reject

3

3

3

Very bad reports. Referees didn't read the article properly!

2014

08/15/14

World Bank Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2018

11/02/18

World Bank Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

2018

06/06/18

World Bank Economic Review

Ref Reject

6

N/A

0

2 referee reports. One good and helpful with R&R, the second referee did not understand the paper. The editor decided to reject, I am not in the club.

2015

02/14/16

World Bank Economic Review

Ref Reject

6

N/A

0

5 months before the editor could take the time to look at the paper. Then the referee gave their answer in 2 weeks. Referees rejected the paper or asked for major revisions. Helpful and honest reviews

2015

09/15/15

World Bank Economic Review

Ref Reject

3

3

3

Good Experience. Fast reviews with reasonable comments.

2017

08/01/17

World Bank Economic Review

Ref Reject

6

N/A

2

2015

09/15/15

World Bank Economic Review

Ref Reject

2

N/A

2

Referees lukewarm, Foster took time and effort to explain his decision, also indicated a number of pathways to strengthen the paper. Good experience.

2014

10/09/14

World Bank Economic Review

Ref Reject

1

N/A

2

2018

11/02/18

World Bank Economic Review

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2014

08/14/14

World Bank Economic Review

Desk Reject

2

N/A

0

Useful comments from editor

2014

12/02/14

World Bank Economic Review

Desk Reject

4

5

3

WE got an RR, submitted the revisions in 6 months (a lot of extra work done). WBER changes editor and the new editor (Pavcnik) reject the paper. She said only 1 (very short but with no objections) of 3 of the referees responded and was not able to find new referees. Reviewing all the documents, she does not like the paper: rejection with 800 words of blabla. Serious ppl from top journals can always surprise you...

2016

02/05/17

World Bank Economic Review

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

The editor read the paper and gave some comments and suggestions.

2015

06/30/15

World Development

Pending

7

N/A

0

2015

09/15/15

World Development

Accepted

8

1

3

Took a long time for first response which suggested feasible changes and asked for a revised submission. After resubmitting, accepted in 2 weeks without going to referees. Moderately useful reports.

2011

12/04/13

World Development

Accepted

3

5

3

2013

06/10/14

World Development

Accepted

3

7

2

a bit slow but with high quality reviews

2016

04/11/17

World Development

Accepted

3

2

3

paper proposed theory that is quite a substantial departure, so i appreciate the editor's willing to take it on. reviews were helpful, required a month's solid work to revise.

2014

11/27/16

World Development

Accepted

3

3

2

Nice process and outcome. Quick to online first.

2017

06/15/18

World Development

Accepted

3

2

3

Long time to edit and format after acceptance. Good ref reports. Nice editor.

2012

01/15/13

World Development

Accepted

5

1

3

2014

02/02/15

World Development

Accepted

3

3

2

1 ok ref report, 1 low-quality

2014

09/09/15

World Development

Accepted

6

4

3

relatively high quality referee reports, huge amount of work needed to format the paper according to the editorial guidelines as they receive little typesetting support from publisher.

2011

01/06/13

World Development

Accepted

6

1

2

Surprisingly efficient process given the other comments here on the journal. Also good editing support.

2013

03/11/14

World Development

Accepted

4

4

2

Useful reports, pleasant experience overall

2014

01/21/16

World Development

Accepted

7

3

3

2011

12/22/12

World Development

Accepted

5

4

3

Good experience overall. 1 very good referee report, 1 OK, 1 pretty bad (revealing that the referee was clearly a non-economist). Modifications responded mainly to the good report. Editor accepted it.

2015

03/04/16

World Development

Accepted

3

1

2

Quick process, nice editor.

2013

04/28/14

World Development

Accepted

3

4

3

Very positive experience. Editor and editorial staff excellent. Extremely constructive and useful comments, clearly from people from diverse backgrounds who engaged deeply with the paper (2 economists, 1 polsci). Recommend.

2014

08/26/15

World Development

Accepted

10

5

2

Accepted after first round

2013

03/15/14

World Development

Accepted

12

1

4

One very good report; three okay.

2011

01/07/13

World Development

Accepted

3

3

3

useful reports and pretty quick response

2012

11/26/13

World Development

Ref Reject

8

N/A

3

WD has become a true shitshow. Lazy editor, takes weeks to send paper out to reviewers or hand out a decision. Also, reviewers are non-economists, providing some real WTF comments. Will never submit unless the editor is changed to an economist

2016

08/09/16

World Development

Ref Reject

3

N/A

2

Referees did not put much efforts. 10 lines... not even sure they read the paper

2017

12/20/17

World Development

Ref Reject

3

N/A

3

two referees with constructive comments, one referee rather negative and no substantial comment. paper rejected after one round of R&R due to extremely negative attitude of the one referee. editor is dumber than a second coat of paint.

2015

04/19/16

World Development

Ref Reject

5

N/A

3

1 good, 1 okay and one bad review. Extensive reviews though. Some feasible and some not feasible suggestions. Overall I feel paper rejected because of third negative review.

2014

05/01/15

World Development

Ref Reject

3

3

3

Rejected after two rounds of R&R

2014

12/20/14

World Development

Ref Reject

9

N/A

3

Fair decision. Two helpful reports. One very low quality. Nice words from the editor.

2015

03/04/17

World Development

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

9 wasted months. Terribly run journal.

2016

12/09/17

World Development

Ref Reject

6

N/A

3

One excellent and positive report. One is OK, other one is exteremly negative.

2014

10/25/14

World Development

Ref Reject

9

N/A

2

9 wasted months. Terribly run journal.

2016

12/09/17

World Development

Ref Reject

7

N/A

2

One of the worst experience I have ever had. Got two most useless reports ever. The editor, not having confidence in the reports, decided to reject, I believe. Bad experience with both the referee reports and the editor

2015

11/27/15

World Development

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Good reports.

2014

01/28/15

World Development

Ref Reject

4

N/A

3

Decent reports.

2016

10/17/16

World Development

Desk Reject

13

N/A

0

It took them 13 months to tell us that the article was better suitable for a different journal

2014

02/29/16

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

2 weeks

2016

05/24/16

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Quick rejection. Paper was not a fit so got rejection in 3 days.

2013

01/29/15

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Generic Desk Reject - Fortunately they only took 2 days

2017

12/11/17

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Generic Desk Reject.

2015

11/07/15

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Editor suggested that paper was better suited for JDE (LOL).

2016

03/22/17

World Development

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

4 weeks for desk rejection is too much. Editor says "..his delay is mainly the result of needing to get a second editorial assessment which suggested this paper's arguments are less likely to find a responsive audience in our journal's readership". Bugaga!!!

2016

04/02/17

World Development

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2016

12/09/17

World Development

Desk Reject

5

N/A

0

5 weeks for desk rejection is too much

2016

03/24/17

World Development

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

4 Weeks to Desk Reject

2018

08/27/18

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in a week

2013

06/06/13

World Development

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

2012

12/21/12

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk Rejected in 10 Days

2012

12/22/12

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk reject within 2 weeks

2018

10/15/18

World Development

Desk Reject

1

N/A

0

1 month (Desk Reject)

2018

08/29/18

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejected in a few days.

2015

06/30/15

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Desk rejection in 1 week.

2018

07/02/18

World Development

Desk Reject

0

N/A

0

Ignored reputation of this journal being a small closed network (mostly WB) journal. Proved to be quite true.